Slashdot Mirror
Copy Protection - Scapegoat or Real Threat?
ZenShadow asks: "Okay. The RIAA is screaming about MP3s being a problem because they
can be digitally copied and distributed. Now we have this recent
slashdot article in which the FCC cites copy protection as a key
issue in digital TV standards. My question is this: We've had cassette tape recorders and VCRs for years now, so why is this such a big deal? Is this just an excuse by the industry to hold back the advancement of technology, or is the ease of distribution -really- that much of an issue?"
Are you telling me you never noticed the "playing music underwater effect" that low bitrate MP3 has?
You will think like I tell you to.
Evereyone wants to be MICROSOFT today, they all want a monopoly. They all want absolute complete control over everyone who comes in contact with their industry, company, brain wave patterns etc.
As noted in the comment, this type of control is ridiculous because the recording industry doesn't currently have it anyway. Yes people copy tapes & CDs from friends. Maybe they even borrow it from a library or similar place copy it and sent it back without the Record industry getting a cent. People also make their own home compilations which they give to friends, or just to have in the car etc. SO why should the RIAA care about whether people can copy Mp3's etc... not because you can copy them but because they cant control the distrobution medium ( ie the net ). With people making copies of tapes or cds ( vhs tapes as well ) physically the amount of copying occuring is less since you have to know someone with the cd or tape you want to copy it from ( unless of course you subscribe to the 6 degrees of seperation rule ) where as with the net anyone can find a copy without having know a single person who bought it. Hell only one person has to have purchased the CD your looking for and ripped it to the net. Kinda hurts the bottom line huh.
So what. Too bad. This is the net, good or bad, ofcourse people are trying to change that too. Perhaps what they should try to do is set up something similar to CANcopy through distrobuters of mp3 players (hardware) etc.
For the artists anyway isn't it always about the music anyway ( yeah right ). Thats why we have the likes of brittany spears and the back street boys.
my $1.05
But wait! If I digitize something from an analog cassette tape, will the RIAA be mad at me if I make perfect reproductions of the digital copy?
Actually, all it takes is to go from gen 1 analogue to digital and keep it digital from there on.
If analogue is used at every step then down the road, things sound terrible. Do it as above though and things will be fine even though not as good as all digital.
Get the drift? They can never stop it technically. And as everyone points out, they don't need to stop it to make an honest/decent living. Now if they are greedy and want it 'all for me baby' - that is different.
Bob Clip - friend of A Nony Mouse
Well, vinyl recordings do not have a fixed upper frequency limit like CDs. Thus, a vinyl recording with its large frequency range needs a higher bandwidth to encode the stream properly.
/Rollo at work
Also, a CD only has 16 bit sound, which limits the dynamic range of the medium - an analogue recording has (in theory) an infinite dynamic range. Contrary to popular (CD industry-induced) beliefs, vinyl still outperforms CDs in some aspects (DVD Audio would be sweet, tho.).
Yes, I also find 128k to be of too low a quality, but I find that 192k is a happy medium between sound and size. Plus you can find 192k files on the net. As for the RIAA, they're afraid of losing buisness, and they should be. Personally, I havn't stopped buying the same number of CD's I bought before MP3's, but thats only because I never really bought many CD's to begin with. A friend of mine on the other hand, downloads them off my computer, and hasn't bought a CD since.
Tour costs are payed for by the artists themselves out of their royalties. Right down to the salaries of the lowliest roadies.
A new band with a number one hit goes on tour for the first time, and typically finds themselves in debt to the record company to the tune of millions of dollars.
If you're a one hit wonder you don't end up making a damn dime for a years worth of work.
A tour, by the way, is a required part of your contract with the record company, so there's no way out of the bind.
All together now, " I owe my soul to the company store."
Okay, actually I did once. After that, I got a 'Hong Kong Special' and started visiting some obscure ftp sites. :)
Are you telling me that guy was being SERIOUS?
Damn.
Actually several... Whenever my girlfriend wants a song, she asks me to burn a CD for her. Hey, it's cheaper than dinner and a movie. :)
One of the interesting things that has happened to me is after I started getting a few mp3s, I have started to pay $14 for a single (CD with just one song) and $35-$40 for a regular CD through mail order and small shops. MP3 has let me hear this stuff that I would never have heard otherwise, music from other countries in other languages that you just can't find in the US. I am now listening to more music and buying more CDs. Why not just keep the mp3s? Because to my ears the sound quality is pretty bad.
Dinosaurs didn't die out because 'it was their time and mammals were superior...' If it hadn't been for the comet, dinosaurs would have survived for who knows how long... maybe mammals would have taken over, but there were no signs of it at the time...
I think it's going to be a long time before I can stream while jogging.
Of course, Sony is still making money indirectly from rentals. I bought a N64 because I can download games in half an hour instead of taking all night like PSX cds do. When the cost of bandwidth comes down, I will get a PSX (or maybe an emulator)
The music industry is in the same position as Nintendo, it's cheaper to get it off the net, except you don't need to order a box from Hong Kong to copy music.
1. deflecting your argument to another source
2. you have spelling errors, therefore I do not want you to spell it out
3. followed by incoherent statements that have little meaning
4. hypocritical in sarcastically stating that you appreciated a history lesson, but drawing on history in previous sentences.
5. alluding to karma, as if it has much value
6. insulting the intelligence of this forum
7. depreciating at an alarming rate -- oh my, the sky is falling
This is why internet apps are a dead end. MS and the others jumping onto this bandwagon and betting the farm are in for a rude awakening.
I don't want to be dependent on the net for my music or movies.
You think I'm going to store my Checking account information on an internet account when I can get a free spreadsheet program and keep it in one tiny corner of my terabyte HD? Especially when that internet account is likely to "cooperate with authorities" without even any requirement to notifiy me that "I" have been served a warrant?
Fat chance Sparky!
At home my data is secure, with full constitutional protections. Hell, I can even encrypt all my personal data into my MP3s using a simple algorithm I keep in my head and access with a script I type in and can't be forced to reveal.
The net is great for comunications and for the transference of data, not for it's storage, especially not when storage is getting cheaper than Hershey bars.
fucking idiot... mp3.com is totally legal posts like this are pointless but so is attacking something without checking it out... I D I O T IDIOT... idiot I DIOT ID IOT IDI OT IDIO T IDIOT idiot
hellO, i THINK that LAcey CHABert's HOT
and THEN i THINK that BARBra WALTer's NOT
it's TRUE i LIKE to TURN the GIRLS to STONE
you KNOW i'd RATHer NOT leave THEM aLONE.
I totally agree on that. Vinyl is still the superior medium for audio.
;)
CD`s have a frequency-range of 0 - 22050 Hz, whereas a LP can go all the way from 5 to 80000 Hz. Which gives a much more dynamic, and accurate sound reproduction.
And CD's have a resolution of 16 bits per sample, while LPs have continuous sampling (that is, 16bit vs. infinite).
When it comes to mp3/minidisc the audio is really of significantly lower quality, and is hardly the sound-medium for the future. Most audiofiles would be unhappy with anything less than 32 bits per sample at a frequency of like 120000 Hz (which gives fairly accurate sound reproduction up to a frequency of 64KHz, that is you can hear the difference between a sawtooth-shaped and a sine 20KHz frequency). What I would like to see is The Music Industry going for this kind of quality, which is now possible with the DVD storage-medium. Then one would limit the possibility of spreading it at true quality over the average low-bandwidth connection of most people.
CD is really not a state of the art medium, which is sad considering a lot of music isn't released on LP any more. (allthough most good music is
Having said that, I admit I listen to MP3's, but if I can't get it in better than 160Kb/s, I most certainly buy it on LP (or CD if it's not released on LP).
Imagine the number of pixels growing and the number of colors growing. They'll always be finite, whereas analog will be infinite, the number will become practically infinite for all that a human can detect. Same goes for sound, as the number of discrete cycles per second gets greater. The problem is, no one cares and so improvements will be slow to come. Read on.
Right now, the CD isn't there qualitywise. But even though "CD quality sound" means lousy to me, we'll be with it for a long time, I suspect. There is too much infrastructure build around them and there is no demand for anything of higher quality. Example: MP3s have much much worse sound than CDs, but that's typical of what's in demand. They're more convenient than CDs. The success of CDs is owed to the same reason---were promoted on convenience: no hiss, no crackles, smaller, much more durable. So, even though they were of lower sound quality, they took over quickly.
With TV, there also isn't real demand for anything of higher quality. I mean, unless the digital TV is more convenient, why bother? So, if digital is a perceived copyprotection issue, and on top of that there's no demand, let it wait. That is why it's been a dozen years since the advent of HDTV and today and still no HD. People want flatscreen tvs, not tvs with better pictures.
The most depressing thing is that at every generational improvement of digital technology, we will uselessly debate this copy protection thing.
Ummmm, DSS is proprietary scrambled content, and thus you only get what the provider will give you. Same as cable. You need a good old fashioned C band analog dish to get the content you want, assuming it isn't scrambled requiring you to buy a licensed decoder.
Well then go buy one man! They're readily available, both premade and in conversion form. Hell, I'll make you one myself if you want.
Cars ideal for the commute have been offered time and time again, and guess what? People don't want them.
The commuter car is the auto equivilant of the "network" computer. You don't want one of those disabled brain dead hunks on your desk do you?
Same thing with the commuter car I'm afraid.
They didn't stop doing the code wheel/word lookup type system because it wasn't preventing. They did it because the CD came along. If you look at your game boxes (if you own any :), you'll see none of the CD based ones have copy protection-till now. Now that the CD has become easily replicable, companies WILL find new means of copy protection, simply because they must in order to survive (especially when broadband is pervasive). There will most likely be an internet key check. This will be doable because people will be online almost all the time at that point. The other way would be a new media which was not copyable.
nothings come close to what? for what? what are you talking about?
I am old enough to remember the days when people recorded AM radio broadcasts with a cheap portable reel to reel tape recorder, with a microphone, in front of a two inch speaker. Talk about lossy and lousy sound!
Why? Because most of the casual "pirating" going on is kids with limited funds for music. They spend every penny they can on legal music, and then when the money runs out they copy whatever they can, in whatever format they can, in whatever quality they can.
Format will not change this. Sound quality will not change this.
The record companies meanwhile count each recorded song as a full share of lost revenue, dispite the fact that copying goes on only *after* they have reached full market saturation of available funds.
"The real threat with DeCSS is that it's the first step towards breaking the limitations on content production. I mean, what kind of disaster would it be if anyone with talent and a moderate production budget could produce content and sell it mass-market? You have to shudder at the thought" Not really. if there was a market for non-shite films/tv etc then there`d be some examples of it. I dont see any.
I think you have a decent idea, which video companies might be forced into implementing in some way at some point. But pretend for a moment you are a video company.
Distribution: right now, the video stores handle the process of getting the videos into people's hands, how will a company ever get that reach? People are used to being able to run down a few blocks and grab a movie. Mail order is slow, and full-length downloadable movies are quite a ways off. The same idea applies to theater.
Profit: a movie company will NEVER make money selling the entire movie for $5. Look at cheapbytes.com, they sell REGULAR cd open-source stuff at $5, and they're not making anything! By the time you tack on shipping and handling and profit (evil!) to the movie, you're looking at $12 - $15.
The way it is now: when a company makes a movie, they sell each copy to the rental place for around a HUNDRED dollars. I don't know the numbers on theater, but I imagine it's several thousand dollars. Most movies aren't making squat being sold in VHS form. That is why it is the last stage in the selling process.
Not sure. Here in London you cant move for people saying `spare change`
I agree. I buy a lot of CDs, rip them, and then play everything digitally off my computer. However paying 15 bucks per CD is too much to take risks. I'd be very happy to pay indivual artists a couple of dollars to experience their music without annoying jewel case jacket art. And I could buy so much more music without the middlemen.
If people replaced `piracy` with `murder` and run through it again, maybe that`d make it clearer. "yeah, whats the point in putting murderers in prison, people are still going to kill people, so whats the point". Either a point is valid, or its not. The instance of the point isnt important.
I dont care if they`re losing money. Do you know how much a new cd costs in England? I`ll tell you. 16.49. whats that in dollars? about 28. I`m not paying that for a cd i can copy for the cost of a blank cd (dollar and a half or something...). They need to stop whining and get real. Or just stop whining, anyway.
eas that one long-a$$ run on or did I miss the periods?
The CD's are stamped out from plates in huge cd presses. These machines produce thousands of CD's a minute at a cost of a few cents a CD. Then the cover art is added and that doubles the cost of the CD. Still much less than a dollar.
The artists typically make less than the real cost of a CD, on the order of $0.25 a copy. The rest goes to the record companies, the managers and to pay tour costs.
What kind of speakers are you listening on? I'm listening on $200 Sennheiser headphones (or a $2.5K Dolby Digital system (B&W speakers)), and I can easily identify 128K mp3's. It's easy, there's an annoying subtle warble in the background that mucks with the frequencies. Listen especially to cymbals or other wide frequency noises and you'll hear it. I prefer Xing's variable bit rate on highest setting myself.
I hope you're right. To make this more than an AOLian "Me 2!", I'd like to elaborate in a way that I hope is useful to the discussion:
The fundamental issue at stake is how to get lots of good music to people who want to hear it, while still compensating the artists. As far as I'm concerned, piracy is only a problem when it harms artists. A common reaction to this would be "piracy always harms the artist." This is only partly true. First of all, pirated recordings can not be correlated one to one with lost revenues--if you could stop someone from pirating a particular recording, chances are they still wouldn't buy it. Also, the technology that makes piracy convenient may have other aspects that make it attractive to artists. I think that MP3's (or similar technology with better sound quality) have this potential.
How can MP3s help artists? Even though they facilitate piracy, they also facilitate cheap, easy distribution, cutting out middlemen who enjoy the majority of today's profits. The royalties received by artists today are so low that MP3 distribution could be more profitable to artists, despite increased piracy. Would it really end up helping the artists? I'm not sure, but there seem to be many artists who want the chance to try this business model, but are being denied a fair chance because of the industry's strong opposition to the technology. Two things are certain, though: the current system is not serving artists well (for every mega-rich rock band, there are scores of superior musicians who make next to nothing); and cheap, accessible distribution will not help the RIAA, so they will use whatever arguments they can against it.
Now, to attract heated discussion, I suggest that stopping piracy altogether could be harmful to artists. To be a good musician, you need to do a lot of listening. Many musicians could never afford to buy all the music that they listen to as part of their development. I'm not saying that all musicians are pirates, but I'm sure that there are plenty of musicians who have benefitted humanity with their music, and would not have been able to do so without breaking the law. Consider jazz: The third book my piano teacher had me buy was "The Real Book," an absolutely illegal publication (for licensing reasons--it is a book of sheet music of importants jazz songs). This is not an unusual practice; the book is popular among jazz musicians. I would argue that this book has benefitted the world of music, even though its existence goes against the laws that are supposedly there to protect the development of art. Also, artists such as Negativland use sampling in their music that is illegal under certain interpretations of today's law.
(Incidentally, just to be pedantic, it was probably an asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, not a comet. A comet would not have left the layer of iridium that marks the extinction of the dinosaurs.)
Electric cars have a finite running cost mostly taken up in battery replacment (those heavy duty batteries dont last long when you abuse them at such high ampages). Unfortuantely I cant remember the running costs off the top of my head but a little bit of research on the net should show that the running cost of an electric car is about 66% of a petrol car (This was the figure I worked out for Western Australia where I live) It was also recently anounced in WA that we can request to have our power come from a renewable resource and pay a little bit extra for the privilage (of course it isnt really my electrons that are pumped by the renewable resource but you get the idea). Anyway the incresed cost was so small that it would be possible to run an electric car from a renewable resource for less cost than a petrol based car. So I consider electric car technology sufficiently advanced to be called great since it can be run for less cost than petrol and off a renewable resource as well. As for the general argument of batter technology hasnt advanced to a sufficient point to make this practical I have to ask how far do you commute to work everyday? Most of the americian studys show that the average commute is well inside the range of a well built electric car. Chris Hines : hines@nospam.iinet.net.au (remove nospam)
You didn't download that song off Napster you downloaded it THROUGH as in VIA Napster. You don't download mp3's from Netscape Navigator when you search for them on the web, you download them via it.
Further, just because an original recording is of low quality doesn't mean any subsequent compression should be of low quality as well (what is the assumption here? high quality would be pointless overhead?). Low-quality lossfull compression on a low-quality recording will yield an even lower quality result. Using a higher bitrate is not about trying to achieve near cd quality, it's about preventing discernable error propagation.
--ll--
It's rather the opposite.
Someone doesn't own an idea or song just because they were the first to express those ideas in a particular fashion.
That sort of mentality simply conflicts quite dramatically with the notion of free expression.
That is likely why the notion of copy 'right' is expressed as the means to a public policy end rather than a natural right in our (US) Constitution.
The "playing music underwater" effect is not due to the mp3 format, nor even the bit-rate. It's due to the encoder used. If one uses Fraunhofer's original l3enc, the mp3's sound great -- every other encoder I've tried (Xing's in particular), though faster, sounds like crap. -Hawke
The year is 2120. Alfred E. Neuman Gates IX has just incorporated Microtoast, Inc., a company that sells NanoDupe Physical Object Writer devices. These devices, which have a street cost of approximately $1200, initially, allow a user to make an exact copy of any nonliving physical object. The cost per copy is $100. GigaInfoX International estimates that by the year 2125, the devices will cost $500 and copies will cost $70. I'd *love* to see this entire discussion in the context of such an era. Hmmm, mom needs a car for the weekend -- I'll make her a copy of my Jeep Grand Semi (in the year 2120, SUVs have been replaced by enormous 22-wheel-drive monsters that are 19 feet tall and weigh over a hundred thousand pounts. Oh, and seat belts and air bags were replaced by InstantScotch, which pours you a drink and forces it down your throat so you feel no pain when you die). Yes, the advent of duplication technology certainly does get people talking, doesn't it? As the cost of copying something drops below more peoples' thresholds, naturally more people copy things. Yes, the advent of distribution technology certainly does get people talking, doesn't it? As the cost of distributing something drops below more peoples' thresholds, naturally more people distribute things. When you combine the two, it's clear you'll have increased copying and increased duplication. Not everyone that does these things is a thief -- but certainly if someone makes a copy and distributes it to another person who would have otherwise had to purchase it, then I as the creator of what you copied am essentially being cheated. Just because we're all high-tech shouldn't mean our social responsibilities should be thrown out. ANYWAYs, I rant on... [puffy puffy wheres that gun, puffy puffy you shot someone; puffy puffy wheres that gun, puffy puffy now you're done]
The year is 2120. Alfred E. Neuman Gates IX has just incorporated Microtoast, Inc., a company that sells NanoDupe Physical Object Writer devices. These devices, which have a street cost of approximately $1200, initially, allow a user to make an exact copy of any nonliving physical object. The cost per copy is $100. GigaInfoX International estimates that by the year 2125, the devices will cost $500 and copies will cost $70. I'd *love* to see this entire discussion in the context of such an era. Hmmm, mom needs a car for the weekend -- I'll make her a copy of my Jeep Grand Semi (in the year 2120, SUVs have been replaced by enormous 22-wheel-drive monsters that are 19 feet tall and weigh over a hundred thousand pounts. Oh, and seat belts and air bags were replaced by InstantScotch, which pours you a drink and forces it down your throat so you feel no pain when you die). Yes, the advent of duplication technology certainly does get people talking, doesn't it? As the cost of copying something drops below more peoples' thresholds, naturally more people copy things. Yes, the advent of distribution technology certainly does get people talking, doesn't it? As the cost of distributing something drops below more peoples' thresholds, naturally more people distribute things. When you combine the two, it's clear you'll have increased copying and increased duplication. Not everyone that does these things is a thief -- but certainly if someone makes a copy and distributes it to another person who would have otherwise had to purchase it, then I as the creator of what you copied am essentially being cheated. Just because we're all high-tech shouldn't mean our social responsibilities should be thrown out. ANYWAYs, I rant on... [puffy puffy wheres that gun, puffy puffy you shot someone; puffy puffy wheres that gun, puffy puffy now you're done] --Dantelope (can't remember my password, and I can't get back to my old email account)
(Whoops, should have used Preview... here it is again for those that can't stand that "one huge paragragph rant")
<HYPOTHETICAL type=story>
The year is 2120. Alfred E. Neuman Gates IX has just incorporated Microtoast, Inc., a company that sells NanoDupe Physical Object Writer devices. These devices, which have a street cost of approximately $1200, initially, allow a user to make an exact copy of any nonliving physical object. The cost per copy is $100.
GigaInfoX International estimates that by the year 2125, the devices will cost $500 and copies will cost $70.
</HYPOTHETICAL>
I'd *love* to see this entire discussion in the context of such an era. Hmmm, mom needs a car for the weekend -- I'll make her a copy of my Jeep Grand Semi (in the year 2120, SUVs have been replaced by enormous 22-wheel-drive monsters that are 19 feet tall and weigh over a hundred thousand pounts. Oh, and seat belts and air bags were replaced by InstantScotch, which pours you a drink and forces it down your throat so you feel no pain when you die).
Yes, the advent of duplication technology certainly does get people talking, doesn't it? As the cost of copying something drops below more peoples' thresholds, naturally more people copy things.
Yes, the advent of distribution technology certainly does get people talking, doesn't it?
As the cost of distributing something drops below more peoples' thresholds, naturally more people distribute things.
When you combine the two, it's clear you'll have increased copying and increased duplication. Not everyone that does these things is a thief -- but certainly if someone makes a copy and distributes it to another person who would have otherwise had to purchase it, then I as the creator of what you copied am essentially being cheated.
Just because we're all high-tech shouldn't mean our social responsibilities should be thrown out.
ANYWAYs, I rant on...
[puffy puffy wheres that gun, puffy puffy you shot someone; puffy puffy wheres that gun, puffy puffy now you're done]
--Dantelope (can't remember my password, and I can't get back to my old email account)
First of all, the media you mention, like all media back then, was analog, and duplication of analog media produces an irreducible loss of quality. To a lesser extent, even playback damages them. This means that one can only copy a tape a certain number of times before it becomes useless. Futhermore, real movie/music buffs won't settle for anything less than top quality, which means the original tape as sold by the studio or label.
MPEG compression produces losses as well. While there is no per generation loss as there was with analogue tape, there is still that inital loss, and it is quite noticable (if you don't believe me, try an a-b comparison of a wave to an mp3 someday).
Exactly. And for how many people is it really worth it to spend 2 hours to get one song?
MP3 whill always sound bad eaven the CD is lo quallity LP have 1000 times as mutch info
What sort of mechanism are you using to measure? I certainly hope you are not just basing it on "it feels/seems different". When I put audiophiles to the test with a CD played over the exact same system, and they are blind to what I do, not one has yet correctly identified the CD vs. the 128kbps MP3 more than chance would indicate. It helps to have a good soundcard. My dad complained that MP3's were horrible. They were on his system. Once he got a soundcard that wasn't from the days of 486's, or the $10 bargain bin, they sounded as good as CD's.
Seems like a sad argument. After the first initial recording -- say from a cd sound quality turntable -- on to digitial media, you would then have a digital copy that won't degrade if you pass it around. This is isn't the problem. The problem is that a higher percentage of users around the country think that they are all powerful in terms of computer usage, and can now email a nicely compressed file to the 1200 people on their "family" mailing list. If only 10000 people around the world new about this format, there wouldn't be any trouble at all.
My system is Mandrake Linux XMMS Samba ftpd why apache/mysql the clients use winamp or XMMS depending on sys (my music machine is 486 dx4 100 dual soundcards 10" screen no windowmanager XMMS direct on X )
First of all, how do record companies actually make money? By copying and distributing music!! They are the original pirates and unlike most of us, they do it for VAST quantities of money. They do not create content, they pick and choose it. All the power they have when it comes to content is directly due to the fact that musicians historically have been dependent on the labels to sell their product. And just look at how they wield that power... radios stations that play the same crap over and over, clones upon clones of the same bands, musicians who have to sell their soul and sign away their rights to get a record made. I have no sympathy for them.... None what so ever. If, by copying a CD and giving to a friend I was stealing directly from and ONLY from the Artists mouth, I'd have second thoughts.... bit since %1000 of the profit from that CD actually goes into the pockets of middle men who produce nothing of value to me, It really doesn't bother me as much. I still pity the Artist but the system needs to change. Second of all... Resistance is futile. You all know damn well that any copy protection they implement will be cracked eventually. In the worst case, we will ALWAYS have the ability to copy the song while it's being played either by intercepting the decrypted digital stream via software or by an analog capture if necessary. Same goes for VIdeo. Yes there may be some degredation but as MP3s have already proved, a little signal loss is no big deal to a majority of people. Christ, there are people watching Phantom Menace in a shitty postage stamp sized windows!!!! The best that the Entertainment industry can hope for is to make copying such a pain that it never goes mainstream.... Good F%$%ing Luck... Lastly, I've got a problem with the concept of intellectually property rights and royalties to begin with. Our corporate socieaty has taken the concept way too far. What gives a record company the right to STILL be making money from a song written by a dead artist 20,30 or 100 years ago? For that matter what gives an artist the right to still be making money on a song he/she wrote in two days many years ago? Most of the rest of us get paid ONCE for the services we provide, not the for the rest of our lives, childrens lives, and even grandchidrens lives. (for infinity if the record companies get their way) Sorry... just doesn't seem fair to me.
I know plenty of albums I didn't buy because of their availability on the internet.
Then YOU'RE the one who's pirating, but don't assume that just because you do it, that everyone else does too.
I know plently of albums that I DID buy, because of their availability on the internet.
Specifically, (Stuff)Holly McNarland, (Album of the Year)Faith No More, The Irish Decendants.. I'm planning on picking up some Dread Zeppelin and the latest Weird Al CD's this month, too.. why? Because I downloaded the (illegal) MP3's from USENET..
Is it illegal?
Tecnically, yes...
Is it destructive?
Not on your life... because I have the ability to experience more music than I did before... I download music from bands I've never heard of, to see if I like it - if I do like it, then I buy their CD. If I don't like it, then it just gets deleted.
Here's a question for you:
Would you buy a recording from someone if you were unable to hear their music before you paid your money?
Neither would I. That's what radio stations are for.. but most radio stations suck, because they only play top40 crap, and in heavy rotation. The internet and MP3 gives me the ability to decide what I'm going to sample, instead of what the record industry wants me to sample.
We should revolt against any attempt at copy protection! What has it gotten us all these years? I mean look at all these companies that peddle so called "intellectual property", patents, copyrights and all.
How dare these companies that hunt down, research, develop, manufacture, market and distribite products or services try to make a profit? And what have they done with all this money? By God, they're just paying engineers and scientists to do R&D, and so called "popular" artists to sell "mainstream" art. The insolense!
Instead, we should all go against the stream (because we have to) and flock behind artists that do not choose to go the commercial way (and would summarily refure any record contract thrown their way) and follow the paradigm of companies that have flourished with no IP whatsoever. Who wouldn't want to have the income flow of a Red Hat? a Caldera? dare I say, a VA Linux?
Argh...
Reading the January issue of PCPLUS magazine, they have an article on C3D Inc., who plans to produce and distribute a 140GB CD-RW by the end of the year. Assuming this comes about, I will have one CD with all my music for both home and work. Yes I will use MP3 to archive my stuff. All of it.
This is hilarious. You accuse me of further decreasing the quality of slashdot, while you do nothing but blow smoke. I thought your attack on him was baseless and unjustified. Therefore I replied.
Nevertheless, the overtones of this posting do give some meaning. I do not, however, understand the anger involved. Are you just bitter because your quality postings are not moderated?
No, I am not affected by karma. In case you hadn't noticed, the system is broken. Early posts are most often rewarded with moderation, while quality posts later are not. Instead, I rely on my ability to browse for certain key words of interest.
Note that I did find your other comments to this story of value. However, I have still not seen an articulation of the argument in the parent thread.
The value attached to major labels marketing music is far greater than anything mp3.com can do. I recall reading a story full of disgruntled mp3.com artists who, even while featured on the mp3.com front page, only sold around 200 cd's. Even then, they must sell them at much lower prices because people do not attach that much value to non mainstream music.
I'm sorry to say, but at this point and time, it is impossible for bands to effectively promote themselves without the help of a major label. This is of course relative, as it is quite possible to earn enough to eat, exist, and live a little on smaller labels who do their best to promote. Offspring's success on the Epitaph label for their album Smash, is surely an example of the possibilities. Most often, however, the story is of many years of toil, building a fan base through endless touring. The sad part, is at the end of the tunnel, where when they are signed to a major label, they are often asked to change their music for mass market appeal; to conform to the expected mediocrity that the large record labels have built, and to be just like some other current cash cow in the mainstream. They also often find that their past fans label them as sellouts for changing their music so much.
Anyway, my point was that mainstream labels have a stranglehold on the mediums of promotion. They can get you promoted on MTV, the radio everywhere, tie you in to tv shows, and get you touring with another successful band, which ensures overnight success given the music meeting some sort of standard.
To a sharp ear or eye, analog is vastly better. Now, though it's my opinion that vinyl is better than tape, they're both better digital technology. Maybe not the little cassettes that fit in your car stereo, but wide, fast open reel tapes like master recordings or even some excellent hifi VHS are vastly superior to CDs.
I'm not saying that vinyl and tape don't wear out, or are as convenient to copy, manufacture or distribute. I just want to set the record straight on the quality issue.
As an afterthought, who could argue that analog film, either still or in motion, is not light years ahead of pixelized images or DVD?
at work forgot password doh!~~~@@#^&!%@# I would agree collectible aspects of CD's are the covers , autographs, original case and actual screen print on the cd... not just the music. Overall listening to the radio can get you the same desired results ... if you like the latest rotation of music out there. However if you really wanted the music and enjoy the band who performs it to any great extent you'l l buy thier album regardless, to get that cover, silkscreening on the CD and autograph on it when your grubby lil' fingers take it to an album signing... The R...blah blah blah group if defending the intrest of the record company to continue to soak the paying public into buying more one hit band songs because you heard your local d-j hype the P.O.S. on the radio... hell if they play all the songs from albums on the way to the shelves I'd say sales would drop just because you didn't like 80% of the other tunes. People who appricate bands and what they perform will always buy the "real thing" and others will listen to the radio(now in your own format compliments of MP3 and other digital venues). Daak -_Anon_fail_kill_ID_my_fault_no_password_Opps
"It'll be a long time until there are outlets for media distribution online that meet the specs of users and vendors"
Agreed. I would also add the artists to this equation. Large record labels almost own the channels of mainstream promotion, so arguing that companies such as mp3.com can do a similar job are completely stupid.
What I do not see, is the problem with certain secure formats written by microsoft or att. The copying of these materials is usually done by just recording through Wave/Directsound -- just as is possible, and is even more time consuming than ripping audio cd's.
I suppose they are trying to go back, because of easy distribution worldwide online, and with forecasted future proliferation of bandwidth.
The problem, however, is that there is no perfect answer. Labels, the MPAA and the RIAA can only work to prevent the average person from recording their materials, so that someone does not distribute hundreds of thousands of unauthorized copies on the internet.
However, when the internet and computer meets music, the answer to this problem is very bleak indeed. For every good consumer, there is another asshole who wants to exploit the system, using software from another asshole who writes the software for personal profit at the expense of others. Even if forced to use a hardware decoder to listen to music on the computer or other mediums, I would bet that someone would come up with a method to break this and continue the cycle.
With the anonymity of the internet, it is virtually impossible to track down the origin of a certain piece of software to crack something software or music or anything.
In other words, the RIAA is flailing because they are pretty much fucked.
Piracy is just so much easier in digital form
yeah, even in analog though the real fanatics will copy if they really want to. I know a guy who is on a "copy list" where the list members trade tapes, DAT, and CD's, all of which are bootleg copies of a particular singer. There is degredation, and they know that, but this guy goes through about 30-40 CD's a month burning stuff, and I don't even want to think of the bills he pays for shipping. No matter what the RIAA does, there's always going to be someone who lets a friend copy, always.
That's why you wire up some sort of recording device between the incoming pipe and your display device. Right before you start the download/play, you punch record. When you're done, you own a physical copy of the content. This is, in essence what a VCR does.
If they want to sell content to you at home, that means having the content pass through hardware over which you have physical control. And that means that you will have the opportunity to capture and replay that content, though it may not be an entirely trivial process - significant reverse engineering may be required to figure out how to build a recording device that correctly mimics a display device, from the POV of the central server. But unless laws are passed that prevent such reverse engineering (and I can't deny this possibility), someone is going to build and sell such a device. And then someone else will do the same, and so on - until we see roughly the same situation we do with VCRs today.
Are you telling me that guy was being SERIOUS?
Damn.
No, I was telling you that I didn't exaggerate all that much when I wrote it
--80md
Ultra High Quality Digital Recordings aren't worth a damn unless your DACs (and the rest of your hardware for that matter) are on par with the standard. 95% of consumers are mindless twits content who are content listening to their top 40 garbage through some cheap "boom box". The Compact Disk didn't replace the tape because of it's sound quality, it replaced it because it gave the ability to skip from track to track at the touch of a button and other neat features. And for that matter, the cassette replaced vinyl in the mainstream because the cassette was portable. Until a new standard emerges that offers somthing besides sonic merit, the CD will be king. The advent of portable MP3 players may do this someday, when everyone has broadband access and can download any song they want in seconds (but then again there's no way the record companys will ever embrace such a thing). It would be interesting, considering an MP3 is regarded to have poorer sound quality than a CD. Analogue is still better than digital, it just requires some amazing hardware ($$$) and that sacrafice of convienence. steveh@globaltelinc.net
<soapbox>
It took more than a decade and the efforts of hundreds of brilliant and dedicated people to make digital audio sound really good. MP3 does not sound good, it sounds OK. It is not 'CD quality' (itself the bottom of the scale in professional quality, IMO) unless you are suffering from hearing loss. Every time I hear someone say MP3 is CD quality, I cringe. I'd sooner go back to Windows (after 10 years of unix) than listen to MP3 for any length of time. It's sad, but true appreciation for the finer points of any technology seems to be lost on the people who merely accept what the consumer market provides.
</soapbox>
-jh, too lazy to log in.
What, you don't think the average CD cost of ~$18 is worth the 10-11 tracks you get? ;-) Frankly to be honest, I'd MUCH rather give the artist themselves $.50-$1/song, build my own music mix CD's, and then download an ISO image of it or have it mailed for an additional small charge. That way we don't get force-fed the garbage the recording industry is trying to pawn off on the world. The trouble is finding decent artists that are willing to DO this or are ABLE to do this without having their agents/recording company killing them. You end up as a result with a bunch of garage bands with 90% of them sounding like shit.
Tried to?
from what I can tell, they have been pretty successful.
I mean, yes, perhaps you can buy DAT, but how prevelant is it?
Drewbert
Yes, but the thing is, most people I know wouldn't buy the CDs anyway if they didn't listen to the MP3s. They'd rather do without the music if they had to pay for it.
24 bit isn't so important for listening, but it's a good thing for recording, because you can't record at full dynamic range without risking clipping. By recording at a safe level with higher dynamic range, when it's all mixed and gain matched, you should have 16 bits of good data left.
Being a musician is one the hardest occupations to make money in. I know, I was a professional musician for almost twenty years, tough work! I now work as a sys admin and still play occasionally. Some of the best computer people I know are (former) musicians.
Those wealthy musicians you talk about represent less than 1/100 of 1 percent of the total.
Why did slashdot change the default comment display from threaded to flat??
Yes, but at the same time does this mean that can just destroy a perfectly good technology? They want to walk all over MP3's, despite them being potentially the new way of distributing music. Illegal is illegal, but it is the persons choice that is illegal and destroying the technology will only have it be replaced by something else.
They have every right to encrypt or whatever, just don't expect any sympathy from me when their encryption technique is broken in a month. The *future* is online music. This can't be denied.
Now, I still have a place for CD's in my heart. Portable mp3 players don't suit my needs (battery life, memory, etc.) and CD's like S&M that are continuous music don't go over to mp3 perfectly.
So if a company makes an audio solution superiour to mp3 and happens to support amazing encryption as well, then expect things to change. Until then, it'll all be finger pointing.
If it's of any consolation, I HAVE gone out and bought a cd that I had as mp3's first. I made some mp3's of orgy's candyass cd at the place I was working, and I bought it about 3 months later.
I've also bought a ton of dvd's since they came out. I don't know what it is that makes them more appealing than vhs copies. Those bastards are expensive, and I honestly wouldn't mind pirating several of those to pay what I think they're really worth.
Actually, the instance of the point IS important, because the severity of the crime should determine the extent of the fight against it. Why? Because crime will happen, much more than our capacity to fight it. So like triage, you pick the worst crimes and devote the greatest resources against it.
If someone steals my $0.01, yeah, yeah its theft in principle, but hell I don't care about it. I replace the word "theft" with murder and suddenly, I condone murder??? No, you can't swap terms bud.
I'm sorry, but the RIAA and other large, wealthy organizations propose to sacrifice a whole lot of our general rights to fight a minor crime. Yes its minor. If you think the RIAA members losing money to be a heinous crime against humanity, go talk to some Bosnians or battered children to get your sense of right and wrong corrected.
Is it really such a bad thing? I mean, if the FCC or IAE, or BCC or MIB does succeed in creating a monopoly structure, one of two things will follow. 1) You'll have a US vs. M$ style lawsuit within not too many years, as other companies will get hurt in the process as well as us *ordinary* folks. 2) You'll have some *ordinary* guy, come up with another invention, that will break the circle. History teaches us, that monopolists never live long.
Ack! I HATE it when somebody says "it's literally CRAP" when they're refering to anything other than a steaming pile of DUNG. Literal means LITERAL! It is NOT meant to hyperbolize an over-used cliche! Get a clue!
Ok, I'm done now... Mark me -1 and I'll be on my way...
Great post that gets at the gist of the issue. How about this idea: Busking on the internet. Commercialize MP3, and establish a standard where mp3 players can "charge" you for listening to a song. The price would be .5 to 2 cents, and more for public performances. These charges would be recorded and tracked, and, a couple times a month, you could upload the info to a server, and you'd be invoiced for around $5 - $15. The server would divvy up the money based on track plays, and most of it would go to the artist or his or her organization. There's no coercion involved. You could opt out of the system. I believe, however, that most people would opt in and pay their fees. (BTW - the servers and players would have to verify the validity of the tracks and all other kinds of stuff - they'll be paid for this service.)
dear zenshadow,
the undertones of what you're asking here are quite obvious. this question is not about copy protection at all. while i'll admit, this "cover question" is quite the ingenious idea, it is utterly transparent. i'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here.
let's assume you had a health problem... say a severe burning sensation when you urinate. would you go to your mechanic and ask, "hey, joe, my heater core is leaking, why do i smell a funny burning odor?" then expect an answer which would solve your health problem?
now, to answer your real question: yes it is very important to wear a condom when having intercourse with your favorite hot young actress. as i've pointed out in some of my previous public service announcements, it is a damn shame when a hot young actress becomes impregnated. furthermore, i shudder at the thought of you spreading some disease to my favorite hot young actress... who shall remain nameless here... yeah, ok, so it's natalie portman.
in closing... always remember:
honesty is the best policy
if you're gonna play, you're gonna pay
keep a cool tool
you're no natalie portman
thank you.
the fat-time charlie online serial!!
NC = no comment
You're a little off the beam here: Consider each step in the release sequence as part of the same marketing process.
First off, most theaters pay a percentage-- typically 40 to 90%-- of their gross ticket receipts to the film company. (Sometimes there is also a guaranteed minimum payment involved.) Obviously, for a big hit at $6/ticket, these payments can be tens of thousands of dollars per screen. This is why most theaters make more money off their concession stand than they do from ticket sales (and explains those $3.50 Cokes).
After theatrical release, most films are made available to pay-per-view (again, usually at a percentage), then subscription cable (sometimes as an individual deal, more often as part of a package of pictues), then network television, then non-network (if there's anyone still interested). Sometime during this cycle, the film releases on video.It's important to realize that the whole sequence is intended to maximize profits at each stage of release. The company makes more money when the film is "more valuable" (new), and takes a smaller cut at each later step. (It also gives them a chance to sell you the same thing several times: As a theater ticket, on cable, as a rental, and in hard copy.) And keep in mind that while film production and distribution has high initial costs, once those costs are recovered, profits can be very high.
You're right about the initial cost of rental tapes being in the $100 range. That's intended to keep them out of the hands of the casual buyer (who's supposed to go rent the tape if he wants to see it at home). Later on, after the first rush of rentals, they drop the price (sometimes several times), each time picking up another (less interested) segment of the "buying" market. But all the while, those initial costs are being paid off, and this is where you go wrong: Your contention that $30 VHS tapes don't make much money. If this is the case, why are there thousands of VHS titles now available, especially when many of them required expensive pre-production work (unearthing source material, striking new, color-corrected prints, renegotiating subsidiary rights, etc.). The answer is that, although there's not as much money to be made on video sales, the costs are much lower. In the case of a hit, the picture may be "already paid for". If it's something out of the library (or a flop), the costs have probably already been written off. In either case, almost anything over manufacturing expense is pure profit. Believe me, there is money being made with VHS... a lot of it.
---------
And as an aside (which gives me a chance to relate a somewhat off-topic story), another reason that VHS is the last stage of the selling process is that if the VHS came out first, the theater owners wouldn't play the picture. In 1983 Paramount released a film version of The Pirates of Penzance [credits here] starring Linda Ronstadt, Kevin Kline, and Angela Lansbury. (BTW, it's great fun. I highly recommend it.) Unfortunately for them, Paramount also decided to use it as a test case for simultaneous release to home video. The long and short of it is, the major first-run theaters boycotted the picture. I know because I was working for a dollar theater at the time. Because no one else would give the film a booking, we got first run and played it for three months.
So they're not expanding the data (leading to audio artifacts) like they used to?
;)
Got stock numbers?
And any ideas on recovering data from a MD with a toasted TOC - without buying the $800 drive and Norton?
-- Ender, Duke_of_URL
This is an "apples and oranges" argument. When the RIAA talks about "product seized," what they're referring to is illegal, mass produced material. This can be anything from "good as original" (but bogus) CDs to compilation cassettes run off in somebody's garage. The important part is the mass production, which means relatively large-scale, frequently with organized-crime ties, and with the resources to break any copy-protection scheme the companies come up with. This stuff is always sold, sometimes by sneaking it back into legitimate commercial channels, and sometimes on the fringes. This is criminal activity, by criminals, and the only way you'll stop them is with police work.
Compare this with individuals making individual copies for either their own use, or for their friends. This is usually small-scale, and seldom if ever sold. Is the aggregate amount of this kind of copying enough to materially affect actual sales? The RIAA would have us believe so. I believe that this is only a factor if (1) you can get the identical thing by copying it (that means liner notes and album art, as well as the music itself), and (2) if the cost of your time and materials to make (or acquire) a copy is significantly less than the same costs for buying a "legitimate" version. For me, if CDs sold for $10 rather than $17 there would be no question... I'd buy rather than copy. But what the RIAA wants is to eliminate the copying and still keep the $17 price. Don't these guys know anything about volume?
By using "piracy" you help confuse issues that should be separate. Most here would probably agree that setting up a mass-burner and running off 1000 copies of somebody else's CD without permission would, while technically possible, be The Wrong Thing(TM). But does that mean that making one copy for your own use is also wrong? How about one copy to give to a buddy? What if he later buys his own legitimate copy? It's important to separate the "real" pirates... the commercial (and large scale), organized-crime-type counterfeiters, from the individual posting a MP3 (if just because of practicalities of law enforcement[1]). Calling them all "pirates," while it may be convenient, promotes sloppy thinking.
---------
[1] IIRC, present Copyright law fails to do this, and (at least as far as the criminal part of it goes) lumps the guy who Xeroxes one page of a book with the guy who prints 10,000 copies of the whole thing. But guess which is more likely to be prosecuted? (Meanwhile, IANAL... usual disclaimers apply!)
I think the above deserves better than a +1.
Somehow I doubt that Disney will refrain from extending copyright protection durations every time the last extension is about to expire
Yes it seems everytime I watch the news another musician has gone bankrupt because of MP3s. Give me a break, most of them have way too much money in the first place. And I'm sure the label executives are really hurting as well, can only buy 2 new houses this year.
Reality just doesn't seem to agree with the RIAA lawyers opinions (yet again).
...FUCK THE RIAA!!! Figuratively of course, dont go to the building and whip it out, thatd be bad!
Videotape. Hollywood sued Sony for the Betamax saying it would ruin the industry and everyone would pirate. This is the dinosaur. Then they died and the mammals have made the home video industry even more profitable than the movie industry.
Now it's MP3. Sayonara T-Rex.
To hell with fair use; all rights are predicated on property rights, all rights are in fact merely an extension of property rights, or are implied by property rights. Therefore, property rights come first. In a conflict of two parties' property rights, the one that's most profitable comes first, because profitability creates wealth.
Profitability is also inherently moral and should be rewarded on that basis alone. Since a free market rewards the best people, obviously those who have been rewarded more (the record companies) deserve more consideration than the stupid whining consumers, many of whom are poor or even black.
First, "media" is the plural of "medium". Look it up, get it right, memorize it, tattoo it on your forehead. If in your "opinion" your usage is acceptable, then your "opinion" is wrong and you are an idiot. If you think that a million other idiots making the same mistake somehow justifies your own idiocy, then you are a million idiots in one and you should apply to the Guiness Book of World Records -- but you are still wrong.
Second, privacy is absolutely destructive to democracy and a free society. If you have nothing to hide, privacy will not interest you. If, on the other hand, you are a murderer, drug dealer, homosexual, terrorist, satanist/pagan/Wiccan, or agent of the US Stormtrooper Government, then privacy will be of great interest to you. I can easily imagine which category you are in.
If we hav by the artists themselves can release their music, we will have . . .
We will have a major blow to the economy, as well as a diversion of income from its rightful owners (honest businessmen) to a bunch of dope-addled creeps and perverts (the bands). This will not be permitted.
Dude, this reads like . . . that Monty Python "Witch" scene arguement (which ends by saying something like, if she weighs as much as a duck she must be a witch)
That's true of all libertarian arguments, and the rest of the right wing too. So? That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they're morons.
Same shit, different decade.
"will never degrade"? Already has degraded in
the process of applying MP3 compression.
The record industry needs to relax.
MP3 is a nice toy but HiFi it is not.
Nobody seems to realize that piracy is not the main issue at hand. In the past, if a musician wanted to be widely heard, they would need to get a publisher. The RIAA has some people that realized that the march of technology will trample them if left unchecked. Internet distribution is making them obsolete. It is not their perogitive to be pushed out of business. The best interest of the publishers (who are represented by the RIAA) is not the same as that of the talent.
> FOr example, after the matrix is shown as a movie on TV, if u make a digital copy, you can
> then give an EXACT replica to all of your friends, and they could give it to all thier
> friends, etc.
This is a lie and it is being used to ram copy protection down the throat of digital TV.
Think about it. Movies are shown on TV all the time now. Do people tape movies off TV and sell them? Do they give them to all their friends? Of course not, because of COMMERCIALS, not to mention the fact that they edit the shit out of movies shown on TV anyway.
This isn't going to change, but if they can figure out a way to charge everyone $1 every time they hit record on their VCR, it's worth it to them.
The public airwaves should not be allowed to be used as a private content delivery tool, for the same reason that we don't auction off public streets to the highest bidder.
> On the flip side, if the whole process was analog, there would be a noticiable difference in
> the quality after every copy.
VHS tapes are analog, yet we seem to watch, buy and rent them anyway. Most pirate movies are copies of analog tapes, yet people don't seem to care when they buy them.
> Other industries have already realized this danger and have taken REASONABLE steps against it.
> For example, you are not aloud to create a potable minidisc player that has a digital output
Which makes mini disc a lot less interesting as a portable digital recorder, if you can't play back a damn digital signal that you recorded on it.
> The TV industry needs to come up with a set of reasonable guidelines like these.
They need to get a good kick in the pants.
> What the SHOULDN'T do is try to not allow the data to be stored digitally, or encrypt it (Ahem,
> DeCSS) etc. Instead, they should reach a COMPORMISE
Unless we are willing to fight for it, they are not going to reach a compromise. They will just take as much as they can get, and get laws passed to guarantee it to them.
> how many CD-R's did you give this year as presents?
I gave one, actually! But it was an audio cd version of an album in MP3 format that I bought on the internet.... and I actually bought one copy for myself and one for the person to whom I gave the gift!
(in retrospect, I'd rather have bought the cd at the store if it was available... the audio quality was noticably inferior to a cd)
CD sales were in decline for years before the advent of MP3 the reason? record companies stopped aggressively developing talent with the advent of the CD and surfed a wave of re-release sales as we all went out and repurchased our Hendrix (or whatever, albums).
The VCR was going to kill cinema for similar reasons. And we have Multiplexes popping up like mushrooms all over the landscape of the western world. Why? because the VCR created a new generation of cinema literacy, which in turn flocked out to see the new releases... which again in turn created a resurgence in quality cinema (we bitch and moan about the movies now but with no VCR's there would have been no tarantino)
But just as the new generation of cineplex operators are generally a different set of companies to the oldline cinema owners, and offer quite a different product based on cunsumer needs (showing what people want to see whent hey want to see it). the recording indiustry is going to see a great deal of change.
But have no sympathy for the mongrels, they've done their best to kill the music with their corporate mindsets and now the winds of change are blowing.
I can't wait to see what music throws up in response.
"you can't stop the music"
Heh
I've got about 100 Vinyl LPs I want to convert to MP3, and then store them on a server that can stream to other machines on my network or to my stereo system. Setting up the feed to the stereo won't be hard (just build a cheap box with at least a pentium and a sound card). But how would I, I guess, rip the LPs? Everything out there is about ripping CDs.
I guess I start with the turntable plugged into the line-in port of the sound card, but where do I go from there?
Is there a need to go with anything other than a basic (read cheap) sound card, either for the ripping or the playback?
People will always be able to copy anything. Every new game eventually has a crack. "Black Boxes" for cable have been around for years and will continue to be around for years to come. Copying MP3 signals is a joke. How can you stop anyone from copying anything? If you can see or hear something, then you can record it. The question isn't about quallity or even pirating, it's about figuring out their cost to expenditure ratios. If they ram digital cable down our throats, charging us ONLY 13 dollars a month more, plus the cost of their box, so we can then use inadequate search algorythms to wade through some fairly pathetic programming, most people will other other means. Satellite and local stations can be recieved free, decoding Satellite may be illegal, but paying for basic service is still cheaper than digital cable. As for D/A A/D conversion, well, there really is no excuse, we have been doing this for a long time. So perhaps someone is afraid to spend a little money to give us what they feel is little different than the service we already have. Maybe they should improve the service. My friends have Digital cable and it doesn't do surround sound! If you ask me, they could spend a few billion and if done right, could even usurp the telcom industry with digital voice as well.
Why is the music industry really all pissed about mp3? 1) The entertainment industry for the last couple of years has been tring to move to a play-by-the-use pricing model, ala divix. The music industry despriately wants to charge you $0.03 every time you listen to a song rather than letting you just buy the cd. Then along came mp3 and now they know this model will never work as long as mp3 is widely used. 2) With mp3 making internet music possible, they realize they will loose the ablility to dictate music to you. Since the recording industry is your only source of music distribution, fans and bands must go to them. Internet distribution threatens to cut them out of the process and expose you to a wider variety of music, not just what they force feed you. Plus, with computers and the internet the artists can now compose, mix, and distribute music directly to you. If you're a popular artist and your contract is up, why resign? You can distribute all your new albums by a website, lower the price, and still make more money vs. resigning. If you think that is far fetched and not possible now, think about 5 years ago. Could we have been trading songs as easily then as we do now? No. Now project that rate of change over the next 5 years....now do you see?
My understanding is that the stand-alone CD recorders require those $10 audio CDRs in order to work. There is a physical marker on those disks which prevents regular CDRs from working. A portion of that $10 fee goes to the record companies. If CDRs cost $10, no one is going to use them, hence no problem. And if they do, more royalties.
I am an avid buyer of music cd's, who also happens to pirate mp3's. Let's just say, I need a fairly large raid array to store all my mp3's. I'd estimate that 25% of my collection was created from CD's I own. For the other 75%, I have either not listened to yet in detail, do not like and have not gotten around to sort, or have moved into my "buy this shit, it fucking rocks" directory.
Being that I like a lot of punk music, I feel very strongly that I must support the bands and their smaller labels. Therefore I purchase a lot of CD's. Now, my budget is not large enough to purchase everything I remotely find cool, so I don't. I purchase within my generous limits.
On some levels, I am criminal. However, this is not much different than grabbing a box of CD's from a friends house, and listening or sampling them all.
My opinion is that the RIAA is justified in protecting copyright. I'm sure that for every person like me, who wants to be a good consumer, there are many who will take advantage of a given situation.
Luckily, those I choose to support, at least get the majority of what I give them, over costs. The same can't be said for artists on Sony or WEA/Atlantic labels. The last two not only stiff the consumer, they stiff the artists too. Too bad I can't get addresses for many of their artists, to mail money in -- because I'm not supporting their ologopolized distribution network.
I see cheep CDR(W) burners (sub $150) and media at $0.50USD/disc. I also don't see it having any negative effec on the audio CD market (which just grows and grows). Where is this great killing force the RIAA keeps yammering about?
I can see that the record companies are worried because this is Yet Another Way to copy the recordings they distribute.
Of course we can copy tapes and CD's but the record companies basically have a lock on the distribution channels.
But with MP3, anyone on the net can have a site. Even if the site is removed, another one can spring up in a matter of hours. They can no longer prevent 'illicit distribution'.
Mark Edwards
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request
i would. earlier today i made a cd from an out-of-print indie casette, and also made some mp3s for the hell of it.
you can find 256kbps mp3s online, but the best thing to do is just rip your own
Personally, I am against all copyright law.
You talk about art as if it is ideas. You are roughly equating an algorythm for encrypting text with "Starry Night".
I personally oppose patent law, but I would like to hear why you feel you "own" a song just because you heard someone play it.
Thanks
Pax -- Ob
...and as Foogle implied, but did not say explicitely: set top players can play unecrypted DVDs.
Pax -- Ob
No one has ever had a "right to evaluate" an information good (music in this case). That priviledge is extended in such forms as radio play and "in store samples" because it is in the sellers best interest to convince the purchaser that the good has information.
:)
:)
(Information goods, and experience goods in particular cant be priced on cost like normal goods since the marginal cost is zero)
I'm not contradicting what you said- just pointing out that this one aspect of what you wrote isn't about opinion. Its economics.
(thats supposed to be funny, but I'm serious too).
Pax -- Ob
KMFDM put out a recording called "Naive" which featured a song with an orchestral performance of "Carmina Burana" in the background. They were subsequently sued by the orchestra who recorded the work, even though "Carmina Burana" is pretty much a public domain work. Without permission, the song can no longer be distributed. The album is pulled from the shelves, and a legally sanitized version takes its place, minus the song. Unless you own the physical media, you can't get the song any longer. There's several other examples of this (Negativland "U2", etc.). Also consider when a label decides a particular album is no longer selling, and decides to yank it (Out of print). You can bet that if the servers are costing them any kind of money, then the album will instantly vanish from the servers as well.
I'm betting that you'd try and stop it happening. I'm also betting that one of the companies is going to either invest quickly in the new technology and betray the others or that some upstart firm is going to make a killing here.
It's already happening -- mp3.com is right there, right now, and the price point is right. I'm the happy owner of a DAM/CD from a group that I never would have heard of otherwise. A couple of clicks and it was mine. Admittedly I haven't deleted the mp3 that I had downloaded -- instead I copied all of the mp3's on the DAM/CD to my hard drive, so I can leave the CD with my stereo.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
The only problem is that Fuel cell technology is a good 10-15 years from practical application. 20 years before people will actually use them.
My old man worked on fuel cells for 5 years. And the companies working on them are geting close and there is definetly a LOT of promise. But the curent FC technology is still way to primitive. IE very little yield. (not enough power to drive a vehicle reliably)
Ex-Nt-User
Are you driving an electric car? I'm certainly not...
I'm also not wearing a nuclear fission-powered jetpack to work... probably because the technology hasn't advanced to the point that it could be considered "great techology" at all.
~Acheron
Your use of the words "pirate" and "piracy" in this context is confusing. Consider alternatives such as "making unauthorized copies of" or "sharing". See http://www.fsf.org/philoso phy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy for details.
If you make a copy, that is theft - pure and simple - you have taken something which is not yours. You can try and hide your actions by cloaking it in phrases like 'making a backup', or it 'they won't notice' or whatever, but there can be no argument that it is theft.
Copying information or art is very different from stealing physical goods, so the word "theft" is inappropriate for use when referring to copying or copyright infringement. If I steal your bong, you can't use it to smoke anymore. But if I make a photocopy of few pages in a book you own a copy of - or a make a MP3 of a song you own a copy of, you can still read that book and listen to that song. Using the words like theft and steal is almost as confusing as using the word piracy to talk about copyright infringement. Furthermore, making copying impossible takes away my right to fair use of information and art that I have purchased.
Why do you think people have this opinion of young computer people being pirates? Could it possible be because they hear comments from pirates trying to defend the undefensible?
The of the word pirate sin this context is confusing. Consider alternatives like "those who infringe copyright" or "those who share information and art." See http://www.fsf.org/philoso phy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy for details.
Do you realize that you just said:
1. I find the terms "pirate" and "piracy" offensive, you should be more cautious in your word choice so as to be inoffensive. Thank you!
I said much more than that. As well as the defamatory connotations that "pirate" and "piracy" have, these words also have defamatory denotations. Using the words "pirate" and "piracy" to describe copyright infringement is propagandist and manipulative misuse of emotionally loaded language. Using the words "pirate" and "piracy" to describe my fair use is libelous.
2. Oh, by the way, if you disagree with me about abortion rights, you're an idiot!! Moron!! Dork!! Loser!! (hee hee)
I did not disclose my position on abortion rights.
p.s. generally the media says "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion," so neither group really gets called what they want to be called, but, oh well.
I tend to hear the news media use the labels "abortion rights activists" and "anti-abortion activists" more often than anything else. I think these words describe the situation accurately and emotionlessly.
As for the so-called "pro-choice" people - don't get me started. Who could be "anti-choice"? If I ever had any sympathy for their cause, their selfish and narrow-minded attempts to monopolize our perception of the truth have turned me off them forever.
You can't just substitute names here and expect to make a convincing argument. The anti-abortion crowd's attempts to monopolize our perception of the truth often involve violence, including violence against women seeking abortions and the people that staff clincs where abortions are performed.
While it'd be difficult to get everyone to agree on the morality of abortion or if a fetus has the same rights as a born human, we can all agree that the assault and murder of women and their doctors is morally wrong. If the so called "pro-lifers" can't respect rights of the born, how can we give any credibility to their argument that the unborn also have rights that we must respect? This is likely among the issues ralphclark is getting at when he calls the so called "pro-life" movement anti-life.
Piracy is a perfectly acceptable word to people who feel that the act carries pejorative connotations. Not to be rude, but no propensity of corrections will ever change minds.
The terms "pirate" and "piracy" have defamatory connotations to which I take offense -- especially when the terms are applied to my fair use of things I own.
What you're asking is akin to informing "pro-life" activists that they should really call themselves "pro-government-mandate."
So-called pro-life activists are not really pro-life. They're anti-abortion. This is especially true of the so-called pro-lifers who try to enforce their beliefs on others (such as abortion clinic workers) by killing them. Even the generally clueless news media has started to use the term anti-abortion instead of pro-life.
Actually, CDR is a perfect point to make. Phillips/Magnavox ADVERTISES their CD Burners as being for making mix cds. Now maybe they mean for people to keep the copies themselves, but you know that they will then be distributed to their friends.
1: You need to know that CD's can be copied easily.
2: You need to know that you need a CDR.
3: You need to know that you can buy a CDR for £200 from XYZsystems.
4: You need to pay the £200.
5: You need to pat £0.1 per blank.
Then copying CD's is drag and drop. OK, none of this is rocket science, but you've cut out 99% of the population already.
With MP3, copying is drag and drop.
Of course, it's too late for the record industry as it stands. The instant that personal MP3 players appeared, it was too late.
The money will go to an Amazon type company selling individual MP3 files and collections for download for £1 or custom burned collections for £3. Hey, who want's to be a billionaire?
Deleted
For starters, vhs and cassete tapes were/are analog and quite frankly the quality on them sucks.
:)
Only if we're talking using no-brand tapes in a bottom of the line model that hasn't had the head cleaned ever. Recently I did the experiment of comparing the sound quality of a 128k mp3 ripped from CD to the cassette single version, which has been stored rather haphazardly for 5 years. The cassete sounds significantly better, even though I was playing it in a walkman connected to my stereo (I sold my tape deck a few years back, silly me).
The only reason I use mp3 is that it's great for parties when you can have hours of techno playing with geiss displayed on the TV, and the fact that those made in germany techno CDs are so damned expensive here in New Zealand (if you can find them in a shop at all). When you have the volume turned (almost) all the way up sound quality doesn't seem to matter as much
The only problem with digital TV I can see is that it may save the pirates the trouble of buying a real time video compression equipment and allow them to just copy the compressed transmission. But just exactly how much compression can you put into something that will be used in consumer electronics intended for widespread use (I doubt they'll use $50/unit DSPs...) and at the same time give an acceptable quality (analog broadcast TV quality is extremely good), considering the main aim of digital TV is not improved quality, but the ability to cram more idiotic channels into the same amount of bandwidth.
Kill'em! Kill'em all!
There will always be those who want to copy a copyrighted work. They fall into two categories:
1) Individuals who would only buy a fraction of this stuff, but by copying are able expand their library of whatever. Warez kiddies and the guy down the block who copies every movie he rents fall into this category. They don't need the stuff, they'd never pay for the stuff anyway, and the quality of the copy really doesn't matter that much to them. After all, they don't use most of the stuff anyway.
2) Pirates who want to make near perfect copies and sell them to legitimate buyers in order to get rich.
When you implement copy protection, you need to think about who you are protecting against - The first bunch or the second. The first bunch aren't worth having too much protection against, because you aren't losing much money on them anyway. The second bunch is worth some effort, because they are stealing your profits. The problem is that the second bunch also has the will and probably the money to break anything you do.
So what's the outcome? As another poster noted, it used to be that every software vendor was trying to copy protect their stuff. Mostly they've given up doing so, having figured out that it wasn't worth the expense. I think we'll see the same thing in other fields - they'll all figure out that if they put the money they were spending on copy protection into marketing and promotion, they'll make more money than they lose to piracy.
Just my opinion...
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
Consider - the arguement that VHS copies are "okay" is due a quality loss versus the digital recording doesn't hold. MP3 is a LOSSY compression system. You automatically have lower fidelity than you do with the original digital recording. Certainly it IS true that you only suffer the initial compression loss since the data itself is capable of being copied losslessly... but that initial step IS lossy.
I think the copy-right holders are just pissed that people can MAKE they're own copies PERIOD.
Just an observation.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
I know my folks will always buy, and the average consumer who has no idea or is still using AOL will buy. In 50 years when everyone understands how to use linux normally, then I'll worry that piracy will go up.
Piracy is still larger in China than it ever is here. Stop the factories from churning out copies. I'll buy a CD, I'll pirate a CD, I try to play neutral. The industry is overcharging us on all fronts. Too many greedy distributors or artists who might think they are worth more than they should be. Who knows.. people will always whine for one side or another, this ball, this argument, all arguments, will continue. I just wish people would stop tossing out hypothetical statistics that are based off of WAG theorums.
Malachi
"Life is all about strategy, mathematics and psychological perceptiveness."
_____________________________________
I'm probably going to lose people because of the length of this post, but I'm going to try anyway, because this issue is very important to me. There are a lot of points in a lot of different messages, which I've collected and replied to in this single post. Throughout, I will use admittedly charged terms like 'foolish', 'silly', and 'childish'. I will justify the use of these terms in due course, so hang in there.
I am not disputing id's right to do anything. As creator of Quake, they have the absolute right to do anything they wish with it, including not release it at all. They don't owe us -- and we are not "entitled" to -- a single thing.
No. What I'm objecting to is the foolishness of adding copy protection at all. Digital media is a universe of infinite abundance, so how do you justify hoarding anything? Don't answer yet; I'll come back to this issue later...
It will be very interesting to compare sales figures of Unreal Tournament versus Quake 3 in about six months. UT simply has check-for-the-CD copy protection (which is still silly, but much less silly than cryptographic authentication).
Again, I'm not disputing their right to impose protection; I'm arguing that copy protection is socially unredeeming, and could lead to bigger problems down the road.
No, it isn't. Theft is when you deprive somebody of their property, such that you now have it, and they don't. Copying creates a new instance; the original owner still has his/her original object. I covered this in my essay.
I contend that it is, precisely because it's artificial. Again, I'll justify this futher in a bit...
The fate of Quake 2? Quake 2 sold millions of legitimate copies, and id Software made tens of millions of well-deserved dollars, even in light of the fact there were enormous numbers of unsanctioned copies. Seems to me they would want to repeat the fate of Quake 2.
Possibly not. But in a universe where there's infinite abundance, how can you justify, in social terms, demanding people not make copies?
id are certainly competent enough to keep their servers running. But if some nincompoop with a backhoe slices the fiber to their building, then you're hosed, and we're back to a single point of failure again.
Just because a thing is technically possible or available doesn't make it a good idea. There are societal consequences here which most people haven't thought about.
Yes. Big fat doubts with green hair growing on them.
Fact: Software publishers continually lament "losing" billions of dollars a year to unsanctioned copying. They routinely refer to these unrealized revenues inaccurately as 'theft'. Yet these 'thefts' are never reported to their shareholders. Fiduciary duty requires thefts, especially of the magnitudes claimed, to be reported to shareholders in the company's financial statements. Since the "losses" from unsanctioned copying are never so reported, we may conclude that true 'theft' is not occurring.
Fact: Despite "losing" billions of dollars a year to unsanctioned copying, software companies, on balance, continue to post rising profits. Micros~1, which portrays itself as the industry's biggest victim of unsanctioned copying, has posted record earnings quarter after quarter for years. Thus, these "losses" are not really occurring.
Fact: No software company has ever been driven out of business due to unsanctioned copying of its products. Such business failures are due to poor quality products, poor management, or lack of business acumen.
Fact: Quoted figures on industry "losses" to unsanctioned copying are completely theoretical, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. It is impossible to gauge the precise amount of unrealized sales because it requires measuring events (sales) that didn't happen. You'd have to fork() a copy of the universe where unsanctioned copying was impossible, and compare the results against the real universe. We must not take the SPA's numbers seriously; not only are their numbers, ultimately, made up, they refuse to even disclose how they made them up.
So, yes, the idea that "piracy" is a big problem is still very much open to debate.
Nowhere did I suggest id is into charity. Nowhere did I suggest that id should not be compensated handsomely for their work.
What I am suggesting is that, due to the infinite copyability of digital bits, the economic and social rules are different, and that copy protection is an attempt to force an old ruleset that, in the long term, cannot work. (Hang on, we're nearly there...)
...And people who want to keep the digital universe free and unfettered, so that its infinite abundance may be enjoyed by all.
As for being a w4r3z pUPpY, please be assured that, once Quake 3's copy protection is removed, I will be off to Fry's with my wallet so fast, you'll see a red shift on my butt.
Okay. Remember how I said I would try to justify all my weird claims up there? Here it comes:
I'd like you to indulge me for a moment, and use your imagination to picture what life might be like on the Starship Enterprise. More precisely, what would life be like where everyone had access to a matter replicator? What would society be like? What would the economy be like?
Let's take the economic consequences first. What happens to a market-based economy when you start handing out replicators? It collapses, that's what. A market-based economy relies on scarcity and inconvenience to operate. If you introduce a replicator, scarcity and inconvenience vanish, and suddenly you can't charge money for physical objects anymore, since your intended market is now simply copying them. Just ask your friend Brad to borrow his BMW for five minutes, stick it in the replicator, *ZAP*, and you get to have a BMW, too.
Okay, so what are the social consequences of this? Do we decide that copying objects is 'theft', or even unethical? Well, really, how can you make either claim? It isn't theft, because no one is deprived of anything. I also have a hard time seeing how it's unethical. If I copy your stuff, you are not diminished or deprived in any way; you still have all your stuff. It's just that now I have a copy of it, too. Why would that be a bad thing?
You may argue that such copying dilutes the value of your property. But if, on the Starship Enterprise, everyone has access to a replicator, then everyone's in the same boat (so to speak). Everything is copyable, and everyone has copies. Thus, the 'value' of your copy is not its relative scarcity (since scarcity doesn't exist), but how it enriches the quality of your life. You would select what to copy based not on what you could afford, but its utility, design, and its aesthetic qualities.
Let's say you were an artist in this future world, and you had just spent the last two years building a sculpture. Everyone you show it to thinks it's wonderful. Now, as the creator and owner of this sculpture, you have the right to demand that no one copy it. You may even be able to enforce this desire with force fields of some kind. But why would you do this? Why, with infinite abundance all around you, freely available to everyone, would you want to keep this fine creation to yourself? More importantly, how would the society around you view this behavior? Might they just possibly see it as foolish?
If a Star Trek universe is too abstract for you, let me offer a more familiar scenario: A schoolyard. There are plenty of balls for all the children to play with, all of them identical. Yet, invariably, some children will latch on to a particular ball and yell, "My ball!!" If someone tries to take it away from them, they will get upset. There they are, standing in the middle of an abundance of balls, all of which are free for them to grab, yet they will insist on a particular one being "theirs." We try to discourage this behavior in our children, because it's foolish.
The reason I bring these analogies into play is because the exact same forces are at work in the memories of our computers. Just as the crew of the Enterprise stand in the midst of infinite material riches, we stand in the midst of infinite digital riches. Therefore, the same economic and social consequences apply to digital works. Yes, you have the right to impose copy protection, and the technical means, but if, economically, it doesn't matter, and it makes you look socially foolish, why would you do it?
You're probably thinking I'm being disingenuous here. I'm not. I fully acknowledge that, as of this writing, the digital universe is a completely different thing from the physical universe. In the physical universe where we all live, we use the tool of the market-based economy to motivate people and get our basic needs met. Yet the digital universe heralds an age where this will no longer be true. The two universes are existing simultaneously side by side; how do we reconcile the two?
I haven't the faintest damned idea. We are still reacting to and building social models for this new universe. And this is why I feel that copy-protection is so wrong-headed. It's an expediency that potentially short-changes our replicator-laden future by causing the wrong social models to be built. The physical universe makes it a very compelling expediency, true, but it could have staggering consequences when the physical universe finally catches up and replicators appear (and they will appear; they're too cool not to).
So, if we were to acknowledge that copying is going to happen and that it's okay, how would we motivate people to create things in the first place, and compensate them for their work? This is the area that needs exploration, and I encourage everyone to think about it.
To be honest, I have no idea how our society would react to replicators. It may turn out that, as primates, we are biologically compelled to be territorial about things, even when it doesn't matter. We may decide that wholesale copying of physical objects is wrong. I don't know; I'm not an anthropologist. Since we have no idea what's going to happen, I personally would prefer to work toward and build the future toward which we as a species seem to have been striving for centuries: Unrestricted, infinite abundance for everyone at zero cost.
And that's why I can't support Quake 3's copy protection. It's not because Quake 3 is a poor product (it's excellent), or because id Software are evil (they're not), or even because it's too expensive. It's because copy protection is not part of the future I want to build.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
MP3s are bit for bit perfect, from the first encoding, to the millionth copy.
I would hardly call MP3's perfect. A 128kbs mp3 is, to my ear, at least as bad as a cassette. A cassette has lots of noise, but mp3's mangle the frequency information. The latter sounds worse to me. 256kbs mp3s are better but still not cd quality, and you never find them online anyway because they are twice as big.
But you are right in that the quality doesn't go down from there in subsequent copies.
The enemies of Democracy are
try finding a new release on cassete
Uhh... The last school I was at had a jukebox that used records... Yes, vinyl... And this was last year, they still have it I imagine... And we had to suffer through Hanson thaht some sadistic trolls would choose and then run out of the cafeteria before anyone could catch and harm them. So I think that if we can get Hanson on vinyl, you can get Eiffel 65 on tape.
~Sentry21~
I'm touched :-)
Seriously, I'm not sure we ever see Hardin say that line directly, but it is attributed to him in several Foundation stories (You mention "The Merchant Princes," but it is also brought up in "The Traders," the 4th story in "Foundation." Thus, I felt justified in attributing it to Hardin. You must admit, it is exactly the sort of thing he would say, even if he didn't actually say it. And no, I hadn't seen the paralell to Mallow's trade tactics, but now that you mention it, it makes sense.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Yeah, probably, but the Hardin quote is my signature, and I have yet to see a Slashdot story for which it is not at least moderately appropriate. Mallow didn't have Hardin's way with words, anyway.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
But it is still illegal, and would be regarded as piracy by any court in the country, and probably most courts in the world. As such, I think my use of the term is justified. And, to be realistic, that isn't going to change any time soon. If it were legal to duplicate and use someone else's intellectual property without paying them, all hell would break loose, and the movie, music, (closed source) software, and book industries would all spend their last penny to prevent that from happening. Don't know if you're into the GPL or not, but if you are you have a reason to support intellectual property, because without it, the GPL, like all licenses, looses its force.
Don't get me wrong, I have a small collection of mp3s myself, so I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou. I just don't delude myself into thinking that what I'm doing is legal or ethical.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Is this the Monty from Swell?
> LP have 1000 times as mutch info
Well technically since LPs are an analog(ue) medium, they have infinite information. And yes, vinyl on super high-quality hardware sounds better than MP3 or CD on super high-quality hardware, but most of us don't have the money to buy that quality gear. A bad CD player sounds better than a bad turntable.
0 1 - just my two bits
Apparently you ignored my request to stop using this name. This really sucks.
Out of all my friends I'm the only one that is constantly online and I am the only one that downloads MP3's, and know what else? I'm DAMN glad I do. I'm proud to say that I download illegal MP3's because in this day and age, there is SO much music I download from a group I've known for years that just plain SUCKS. It would be to the point of taking the CD's back to the store and demanding a refund. I've listened to more music from MP3.com that I liked then on the radio recently.
And on that topic, why is it you can't return a CD to the store after you've bought and opened it? You're returning the original media in undamaged form with undamaged complete packaging... Anyone else ever try to return a CD to the store and got REALLY big hassles?
My opinion - I don't care where it came from, if it sucks, I'm getting rid of it.
- 8Complex
We've had printed books for 500 years now, and one of their nagging little problems is the lack of copy protection. If they were invented today, they'd never make it in the marketplace. Yet strangely books have thrived and proliferated like no other medium. Even though for several decades copying of entire books has been readily possible. The copyright in each book might point a wagging finger in your direction, but that's about the extent of it. People in that industry have had the common sense to leave good enough alone, and it's been a market that has regulated itself remarkably well.
Now along come these young wipper-snappers from the West Coast, driving their fancy cars bought with money made off the backs of a teenage market. Easy money, and as they say, easy come, easy go. These guys live such ostentatious lifestyles that their very existence depends on a healthy profit from each CD. Suddenly they're taking the moral high ground, preaching ethics to a world that has done just fine for centuries. Printing a copyright notice on each CD isn't enough anymore. They have to take proactive measures to make this copyright self-enforcing. Implicit trust in the population just doesn't cut it anymore. We have all this fancy smart technology nowadays, there simple HAVE to be technological ways of making rules and laws self-enforcing. Traffic lights that will uproot themselves and follow you home and punish you for crossing on red. Cars that drive themselves to the nearst police station when you break traffic laws. Bibles that automatically smack you over the head when you sin.
What we're getting to is a world without any trust. Trust begets responsibility. Conversely, lack of trust begets defiance and irresponsible behaviour. This is Parenting 101, but I guess too many of our leaders missed out on that one. The more you rely on rules, the more rules you will require. In the end human beings will regress to a mindless state meandering around and being bounced into proper behaviour like a ball in a pinball machine. While I'm far from advocating anarchy, I think this is the wrong path to take.
Ok, major rant here, complete waste of time and potential sleep really. Still, when I look back on this when I'm 64 I'll feel better about having said it.
As several people already mentioned, there are downsides to not "caching" your data locally. If the access provider for any reason yanks the data, you're out of luck. When the year 10,000 strikes and all computers go berserk and the UniverseNet goes down, you won't be able to play Strauss' "Also Sprach Zarathustra". More realistically, I've experienced personally relying on web content to be there rather than making a local copy, and one day, poof! it was gone, never to return. No thanks!
Also, the privacy issues. I'll NEVER EVER NEVER use a remote storage server for my private data. If the world should ever move to Network Computing, I'll get out of computing altogether. I'll become a farmer, live off the earth, join a militia, that sort of thing.
I firmly believe in the net as a distribution medium, yes I do. But never as the main data store. Call be conservative and narrow minded, but that's me!
> If you don't mind me asking, how did you set up
1 5 1 0
5 5
> your server (I'm planning on putting together
> something similar for home). Linux/apache/mysql/mpg123
> with multiple sound cards and amps? Any advice
> on multiple sound cards (which type) with Linux?
Actually, while I like Linux, I'm not comfortable programming it. I know you can throw together a graphical UI in TCL/TK without X and all, but I don't know how yet and don't have the time to learn. I used what I'm familiar with: Delphi on Windows 95. Delphi let me put together a very attractive GUI and all the peripheral shnick shnack required in no time at all. Also, plain old Win95 950A boots in no time at all on a Cyrix PR200+ and my Delphi UI is up and running in 15 seconds or so. Just pare down Windows to the bare essentials, and you can fit it in 80M or less, MP3 app included. While I'm no Windows fan, it makes a fair bit of sense for me in this situation. Besides, I WORSHIP Delphi, and until Kylix is up and running, I'll stick with Windows.
Note, I said I'm using a 486 for SERVING up the music, not for PLAYING it. The good ol' 486 can't handle MP3 playback, bless its heart. Instead, I make cheap Pentium-level music players. All you need is a P100 or above.
P100-level CPU (Intel, Cyrix, AMD)............$20
Motherboard...................................$
RAM (8M - 16M)................................$20
HD (120M; Lord, where do you even find one?)..$30
TV out Video card.............................$25
Sound card (duh!).............................$15
NIC...........................................$
Case, PS......................................$20
Total........................................$1
You look for surplus stuff as much as possible and can get the price down to below $100. It's also nice to have an IR remote, so price that in as well. Besides, any self-respecting geek has much of this stuff lying around the house anyway, so my machine cost me far less than this.
I don't currently serve up the music from one machine. The above would be hooked up to the stereo system, but other computers on the network with their own sound cards and speakers can stream their own music from the server. Currently I'm using Microsoft Networking with FS access to the music files, but one day it would be nice to move to a TCP/IP based serving system. First things first...
I'm curious - does anyone know wht the royalties on one CD are - 1%? 5%? 10%?
Because it seems to me, with these mp3-man's around and so on, that in the future, it may very well be possible to distribute music over the 'net, a very cheap mode of distribution, which would allow new startup's to distribute the music charging far less surprice for the distribution and yet still making profit.
For arguments sake let say each artist wants 1$ per CD, and only 1/3 of the songs will really be sold if sold as singles (lets face it - CD's are full of bad songs). 1$/(12/3) is 0.25$ per song, plus marketing factor - here only times two. So thats
50c per song! I'd pay that every time instead of pirating if jest for the ease of finding something of a commercial, legal, site.
I think it's really very simple.
People are afraid of change.
MP3 may be a lossy format, but because the .mp3 files are stored on a digital medium, they can be copied infinitely.
The fact that MP3 is lossy doesn't really matter: the process of getting a sound from the source into the recording equipment is lossy, and the process of getting it out and to your ears is lossy. What matters is that you can make a copy of a copy of a copy [...] of an MP3 file without it sounding like shit.
I read your article in meta moderation. Fine article! May more meta moderators approve of the boost to your karma. But, in a light hearted spirit, I noticed one little thing.
An excellent and expressive parallel, except for one thing. It's been done. They're called dikes. Built by the determined people of the Netherlands.
Beware of your parallels, lest reality bite you! :)
cheers,
sklein
>I know plenty of albums I didn't buy because of
/sucked/.
>their availability on the internet.
Yeah, MP3 has stopped me from buying some records too.
But NOT because I downloaded the whole thing, but
because I got to listen to some of the songs they
don't play on the radio...And found out the album
I dunno about you, but I can't afford to
pay $15 for a CD with one decent track...
On the other hand, I have bought several albums
*because* of downloadable music. And I probably
will continue to...
--Kevin
=-=-=-=-=-=
"HELLO SMALL CHILD! WHO IS BACK! I HAVE THE RENEGADE MASTER WITH ME!"
The comments implying that the media companies are only scared now because of the difference between analog and digital recording, or because they've suddenly changed in some way, are completely wrong.
Universal Studios and Disney *sued* Sony for contributing to copyright violations when Sony introduced the first VCRs. The suit was eventually decided, in Sony's favor, by the US Supreme Court.
This whole issue is about a monopoly trying to maintain its grip on the use tax they are able to impose on consumers. Think about it.
What well known OS has actually been able to make inroads against the current PC standard and why was it able to do so?
But yes, you're right, the RIAA and all other companies losing revenue (even if its not much) have the right to do something about it. But that doesn't mean that anything they do that appears to be attacking the problem is the right thing. Attacking mp3 itself, when I can use it perfectly legally, even to make copies of my own CD, is not a valid way to combat piracy. They need to fight the pirates, not the medium pirates can use to accomplish their goals.
Problem: some things aren't legally theirs. For example, the courts have held consistently that the people who bought something, be it a book, a music tape or the like, have certain rights under copyright. If you buy a book, you have the right to make copies of it for your use. You have the right to tape a TV show for later viewing by yourself. You have the right to copy songs from a CD to a cassette to play in your car.
The RIAA doesn't want to protect their rights to their property with their pushing for encryption and security. They want to bypass the courts and take away consumer's rights by technical means that they can't take away by legal ones. I don't like that.
First VHS VCRs could copy videos for like 5 to 10 generations with out noticable loss.
They could also brodcast signal if plugged in backwards (set signal out to cable or out antana).
The signal was weakened to keep this from happening again. As a side effect the recording degrades faster.. now at 5th generation the recording is unviewable.
The majority of piracy (software, music, video) is done from person to person.. with anolog mediums the signal loss reduces the damage done by illegal copying to nearly zero.
The software industry dose not have this advantage. Digital mediums such as flopys, CDs etc are easly copyed and do not degrade each generation so person to person copying creates a problem as the 10th generation copy is as good as the original disk.
The video and music industrys do not wish to have to deal with the kind of piracy the software industry has had to deal with. They don't want people to be able to copy at first condition quality movie DVDs and Music CDs.
However it's allready far far far to late. I can CREATE a digital quality recording from an original anolog medium. Not only do I recover all the loss from the anolog copying (a second generation copy) I can improve the quality slightly and copys will not degrade. Even if I just copy at second generation quality there is no visable loss in quality.. the loss won't show up before the third generation.. that generation NEVER COMES.
I could dump the results back to video tape or place it on a JAZ or Recordable DVD and hand it out. It's not so bad as it could be. The software piracy problem became horrific once you could download software. Downloading music and movie files is still not viable but eventually that'll change.
I don't actually exist.
Actually, I disagree.
Here's where some of that good ol' free software philosophy comes in handy.
If you have a car, and I take it from you, that's theft (because I have taken something, you have lost something). If I take money from you, ditto.
But if you have a song, or a movie, or some source code, or a binary, and I make a copy of it, this is not theft. You have lost nothing, you still have your song, movie, code, etc.
Now, you can argue that artists, record labels, and movie studios have the right to profit off of their works. But it's not the same as theft: you haven't helped them, but you haven't hurt them either.
--
-Esme
I think part of the reason the establishment wants all this copy protection is to prevent the little guy from being able to distribute his own stuff without paying through the nose to them. Why are DVDs encrypted, when it's simple enough to grab the output as it's going to the display? Why do record companies want a copy-protected format; part of it certainly is to eliminate the legitimate Internet distribution channels along with the piracy.
They're afraid of your prediction that the Internet can replace physical media, because that will mean they have to adapt or die. So, they're fighting with every angle they can imagine.
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
I'm hoping that this has been said before ...
... how many CD-R's did you give this year as presents?
How many book publishers get royalties on every photocopy ever made? I can't believe that I'm getting taxed by these dork's for my zip disk and I can't believe that these people think that piracy is a huge loss of revenue!!! Most of their revenue comes from holiday's
Tape and CD-ROM media can have scramble/encryption just like DVD, .... Tape and CD-ROM/music can be recorded at home, why not DVD.
... only the criminals will have the ..., and all law abiding Americans will pay for the resultant crimes/courts/lawyers/.... Dumb logic, but reality in the USA, Europe, ....
BS and smoke that only law makers and the histarical can believe.
When something is criminal Guns, Drugs,
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
My main problem with DIVX was the modem built into the player that communicated with DIVX headquarters. What movies I rent/buy/watch is my business, not data for corporate marketeers and other nosy people.
I don't think that these people are trying to stop the advancement of technology for technoloy's sake. (Caveman say ungh, technology bad, fire bad, unghh.) Besides, if someone invents a new way of playing music, people have to go out and buy a new player for their house, for their car, for when they jog, etc. (and new copies of their favorite tunes). They are just scared that with a digital medium over the Internet (ie MP3s) they will lose their cash cow (ie the sole distributors of music). MP3s hit the big music companies where it hurts, in the wallets. Of course they are going to fight tooth and nail to find any way to stop this. It makes sense.
A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
I don't think it's possible to add so much more value to an album than the audio itself. There are already mixed mode CDs with both an album and some bonus stuff to use in your computer, but I don't think those who pirate those CDs miss the computer stuff much. Personally I don't care much for the pictures/videos/stuff that are on some CDs. It's fun to play with for ten minutes, then you just forget about it and listen to the album.
Yes, copying a DVD right now probably means that you have to strip data off to be able to fit it on a couple of CDs, but it will no doubt be possible to make digital, perfect copies of whole DVDs at some point in the future.
--
"But I'm still like a little kid, see?
I just don't know when to quit."
- Rei
"But I'm still like a little kid, see?
I just don't know when to quit."
- Rei
I agree with most people when they say it's all about the money. I also agree with the fact that these companies have the right ot make money. Then are the convincing arguments of everyone else about everything else.
BUT there is a soulution to it all. If I want a song I have 2 choices, get the CD or the MP3. If I want an album I have the same choices, get the CD or search for the MP3's. But think for just a second about video and music. MP3's are small for the most part. I can usually find a song or two that I want, IF I search for hours. Video is HUGE. Most people are still on modems. Getting an MP3 on a modem is painful, just imagine downloading a video.... There are people that will do it. Start the download, go to sleep, pay the outrageous ISP bill and watch a movie.
NOW if the record companies and video companies sold their stuff a little cheeper, how many of you would forget the LONG downloads and get the CD. If all I want is one song, I'd get the MP3. But if I want a whole album, or even a few songs, I'd buy the CD. I don't want to waste my life on search engines and closing porn ads from anoying jerks. I'd also be more inclined to buy a DVD rather than download it, especially since I don't have that much hard disk space, and I bet most peole don't either.
So to end my bloated post. I think that if the manufactures stoped whining, it's rather childish, and sold cheeper products everyone would be happier. I know I would. I could get that album I want and save my hard drives from a fast and painful death.
Please ignore the spelling and grammer. There is a reason I don't remember school.
all music movie and tv content becomes integrated with ads. you can't view/listen to the content without viewing/listening to subtle advertising and propaganda.
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
And ultimately, why even keep the music and videos on your personal HD. You can already stream stuff from mp3.com and other sites. MP3.com also lets you create you own "radio station" that others can tune in to. I would be willing to pay a $20/month subscription fee for access to a complete online music server that lets me play anything of interest and create custom lists or queries.
If you don't mind me asking, how did you set up your server (I'm planning on putting together something similar for home). Linux/apache/mysql/mpg123 with multiple sound cards and amps? Any advice on multiple sound cards (which type) with Linux?
You answer the question yourself, kind of. Those huge amounts of money are still there, so there has to be a way for someone to get their hands on them. This is where media comes in. In the world of online music distribution, advertising becomes paramount. More importantly, airtime becomes orders of magnitude more important than it already is for mainstream music. Clubs and other venues also become more important; we might see quite a resurgence in live music. The problem is, bands and their agents aren't equipped to handle this kind of thing, so they'll need outside help. Guess who are, without a doubt, preparing to offer this kind of promotion (for a piece of the cake, of course) as we speak? That's right, the member organizations of the RIAA.
In this, it's important to realize that the lack of CDs does not mean that revenues from the sale of music will go down. In fact, when songs cost 50 cents or buck a piece, a lot of people will be willing to pay for one song, 'cause, hell, it's only 50 cents. I guess the average price for a CD track is around $1, so that means you only have to sell twice as many songs to make the same amount of money. At $.50 each, that will not be a problem--on the contrary, I see music sales revenues going UP, not only for artists, but overall.
In short, I see record companies transforming into airtime/advertising agents and tour-organizers. I also see MTV and their ilk (including online stations) become more important and, ultimately, soak up more of the cash that the record companies used to get.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
- 'K' in Men in Black.
Liquid Audio is very different from mp3. First, it's a "secure format". That means that (either by patent or trade secret) only Liquid Audio (the company) and its licensees can make players for these files. It also means that you can't easily convert a Liquid Audio track into another format.
Depends on what you mean by "easily". It's a fairly simple problem for most programming-literate geeks - intercept the raw audio on its way to the soundcard and dump it. Encode to MP3 and there you are. For the non-programmers, the tools to do this are already fairly widespread. So Liquid Audio, like all inherent-copy-protection systems will deter some, but it's not the one and only solution to all piracy by any means.
ben_ the technologist and platform agnostic
Now technology is cheap, and they are finding that they cannot long maintain their iron grip on distribution channels and rights. Their technological solution to the problem is no longer viable, and so they thrash about looking for a substitute; thus far they've looked very hard and failed, which they will continue to do as long as the nature of their solution remains technological and not some social measure such as a change in the law, or the promulgation of changed attitudes.
They're really in a place where a new law and/or a good ad campaign could help them more than all the cryptographic tricks in the book. Not that there's any chance they'll remain unscathed; after all, much of the value add of huge distribution channels and mass publishing goes away with the advent of the internet. It remains to be seen what other abilities the recording industry brings to the table.
This reminds me of an idea that I had a while ago that is based on the fact that something like 75% of the price of a CD goes to the record companies, while the artists gets maybe £1 ($1.5) of revenue.
So what we need to do is persuade artists to market music electronically for a much lower cost.
We could do this by simply sending the artists some money saying: this is for your album xxx which I have on mp3 because I am making a stand against record companies' uncompetitive practises.
IIRC, the cost of manufacture of a CD is less than a CD and they get to charge more. Cassettes started selling less and less. Their move torwards CD as a format was partially economic and partly consumer acceptance.
I don't get the CD-R argument, copying from a CD source isn't a big deal, especially with cheap Cd-r prices. I think its that CD's are just practical for other things. The next wave of formats will unfortunately try and distinguish themselves as completely different hardware formats.
SACD or DVD-audio or stick with what we have or MP3. In a perfect world we'd have 1 of the high end formats and a portable format like tapes for the car.
I can't justify buying mp3s. I don't look at them as a way to keep my music, just to listen to them for a short period of time. I like the fact other formats are clearer but it is nice to be able to say "hey check this song out". Now if there was only a way when you bought CDs to say where influenced your buying decision.
The average price of a VHS movie is not necessarily $19.99; I would agree that this is probably the average price of a "sell-through" title, i.e. one that is targeted at mass-market purchase as well as high-volume rental. There are still plenty of new movies which cost significantly more than this, which are destined to be rental-only and probably are only produced a few thousand at a time. Granted, most hit movies don't fall into this category.
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
It is unfortunate, but we are not even the issue here. I am sure that the record companies really care less about someone makeing a copy of a CD and giving it to a friend. What DOES worry them are people in China taking one CD and them making 10,000 perfect copies and then selling those. That is where the laws and everything come in. The fact that it prevents us from using our new toys is just an unfortunate side problem. They didn't worry about tapes because, as we all know, they become crappy over time, and hence not very useful to duplicate on a large scale. DVDs, CDs, mp3s, all can be duped an infinite number of times, so that is where they panic.
The big deal with deal with digital is that those little 1s and 0s amount for much better quality as well as an unlimited amount of copies without any effort. I think what they're doing is ridiculous because they can never stop pirating. For any format to be useful it has to be decodable. And that means that someone will write a program to decode it into a standard format. As for DeCss, that's not nearly as big a deal as they make it out to be. Who's gonna waste four gigs per movie? Every time someone goes out and tries to make it a little easier for the average guy, the rich have to try and take it away so that they can make money, and unfortunately that will never change.
"I don't like this deep shit about crazy crap"
I haven't really had time to look through the posts and see if anyone else mentioned this - but IIRC, Korn became big simply because their music was available and good - no airplay, no MTV, just people listening and saying 'this rocks!'. They seem to be the most modern band out there in terms of using the internet - they broadcast a live performance of their new album over the 'net, on the radio, etc.. and millions watched. They released the first single from their album as an mp3 and millions listened. I think that we might lose out on acts like the backstreet boys that are more of a marketing plan than a musical act - but oh well :)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
If you want to go ahead and break those laws because you don't believe in the system - fine, do that. But don't expect me (or the greater part of the world) to back you up.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
As for the quality issue, I thought it was funny. Instead of just having a beat-up old record to listen to, now whoever encoded it has a perfectly digital copy of a beat-up old record ;) It's like framing a bad picture I guess.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
It seems like that everywhere I look the welthy are just trying to get wealthier. And they do go to rediculous extremes. As far as copying, umm, why hasn't the record industry thrown a big fit about cd-rw drives? Because it's just not worth the time and effort.
The problem is, the genie's out of the bottle. What are you going to do, retroactively ban MP3? And as more and more people migrate from 56K and under dialup connections to cable modems and ADSL, we're going to see more and more of this stuff.
It's a never-ending war - the folks who want to make as much cash as possible versus the people who want to rip them off because of some leftist agenda. And the little guy, you and me, are stuck in the middle. We *ll* get punished because of the extremists on both sides of the issue.
As for taking cash out of the pockets of a company, that's all well and good to "rip off the greedy corporate bastards", until they lay *you* off because they can't afford your salary because their business is going down the toilet because they're getting ripped off.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
They need to respond in like manner:
1. Everything they distribute on CD, make available as MP3 on their Web site for a much lower cost. They'll save loads by cutting out distributers, CDs etc so they could probably afford to sell albums for less than $5. Many people would pay this much for legitimate MP3s of guaranteed quality.
2. They would have a very popular Web site which in itself is worth a lot of $$$.
3. With a great MP3 site, they could also host free MP3s for minimal cost - an easy route for many artists who want to reach the public.
4. With a bit of foresight they could become THE MP3 portal.
Great Windows SFTP Server!
Easy mass distribution of music via the internet is a permanent reality. This leaves you with one of two choices:
Listen to me or ignore me, but if you don't accomadate your customer instead of trying to force them to buy CDs, you will die, plain and simple.
I will repeat what I've said many times before, in hopes that someone will hear:
Easy mass distribution of music via the internet is a permanent reality. This leaves you with one of two choices:
Listen to me or ignore me, but if you don't accomadate your customer instead of trying to force them to buy CDs, you will die, plain and simple.
Many times, I have downloaded and listened to an MP3 by an artist(s), and because many of the ones out there tend to be the "hit" song from the album, it makes me think (and wonder) what the other songs from the artist(s) are like. Generally the only way I can do that is by buying the CD the song was on. It generally isn't because of the quality of the MP3 - I can't hear much of a difference (sometimes I can hear a major difference, but only if I listen to the MP3 a lot, then go and listen to the CD - I hear the CD as being "crisper").
I have done this many times in the past, and probably will continue to do it.
Of course, there is something to be said about indie artists - I know I downloaded some songs from one artist on MP3.COM, and liked the music so much I went ahead and bought the CD (of all the same songs I downloaded from MP3.COM!) from her site. I could've (legally, since they were on MP3.COM) kept the MP3s and not bought the CD - but I felt that paying the artist for the work was the right thing to do (hey, the quality of these songs were great!)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
While distributing tracks pulled from scratchy records may not seem like a great idea, I have a number of vinyl LP's that would be difficult, if not impossible, to get on CD. So, yes, I'll MP3 those albums, much like I used to tape 'em on cassettes, so I can listen in the car and at home without doing any more damage to the original. And it beats the crap out of the tape, I tell you what.
I can go out on the street right now and start selling fire. I can make the fire by banging some rocks together near some dry leaves, and I can sell it on sticks. If you've ever actually tried to start a fire by banging rocks together, you know that it's pretty difficult. So it would take a lot of hard work to make that fire. But if someone bought my fire from me, they could just turn around and start spreading it onto other sticks, and giving it away! Shouldn't I have some kind of right to profit from the fire I worked so hard to make? I don't think so. It was just a bad investment. Anyone can make fire cheap, and once fire is made, anyone can spread it cheap. What right do I have to stop them?
"I take care over my posts. I spend a lot of time researching them, making the arguments as clear and as coherent as possible. I believe in what I post about and take it seriously. But some git has forged my identity and keeps posting inflammatory rubbish in my name. Isn't this wrong? I don't think so. I shouldn't expect people to treat my identity as my own, since it's so easy to forge. (Shouldn't even bother with a technical solution to the problem like PGP-signing, because it's only a temporary solution and will be brute-forced in time.)"
"I grow tomatoes in my greenhouse. I like growing them and it gives me a sense of accomplishment to see them bear fruit - not to mention that I'm sure they taste better than the mass-produced stuff you get in supermarkets. But last night, some folks sneaked into my greenhouse and stole them all. Shouldn't I have some kind of right not to have my tomatoes stolen? I don't think so. After all, I've still got the plants, and if I want more I can grow them. And the satisfaction is in growing so it doesn't matter that I can't eat the tomatoes, right? And anyway it's my fault for growing something that needs a greenhouse which can be broken into so easily. I should switch to growing mushrooms in the cellar since that's more secure."
"I did X, which required a lot of work and dedication on my part. But once I've done X, people can trample all over it and generally abuse it easily and there isn't a lot I can do to stop them. Therefore they have the right to do so and I shouldn't complain and, in fact, I probably shouldn't have done X in the first place."
Mat.
ObDisclaimer: No, I'm not a dedicated poster or gardener. And I'm not a musician either. But I do write in an amateurish way from time to time, so the suggestion that copyright should be taken outside and shot does not go down well with me.
Hi.
:) There are reasons why X should be prohibited even though it's technically feasible. For X substitute pirating, forging identities, DOS attacks, making yet another evil hamsterdance clone site or what-have-you.
I don't think the original poster was suggesting " that copyright should be taken outside and shot". I found his points to be quite good.
Well, okay. Maybe I was a bit harsh - I did zoom in on one particular part of his post. But he did seem to be suggesting that copyright is outmoded because copying can be done easily, which kind of caused me to see red.
I also think your analogies could be polished a bit.
S'okay - they weren't meant to be exact. (Neither was the original one, for that matter - fire is fire is fire and I can make it easily with a zippo, but the same can't be said for creative works.)
What I was getting at was that (what appeared to be) the main thrust of that section, i.e. that artists shouldn't have the right to stop others copying their work because it's easy to make copies, is flawed. It's easy to be antisocial or criminal in any number of ways, but that doesn't justify doing so:
Your example of forging an identity misrepresents one of his main points. Forging an identity should be prohibitted for issues that go beyond a question of copyright.
That was more or less my point.
What needs to be considered is why do we copyright, how does society benefit, and how can such a rule be implemented and at what cost?
... and, to be fair, I didn't really touch much on specifics here because I hadn't thought much about them. There does need to be a balance between the rights of the creator to get reasonable compensation for their work and the right of society not to have unreasonable demands made of it. ("Thou shalt not reverse engineer" springs to mind.) I suspect we'd all pretty much agree with that, but the devil is in the detail.
Mat.
Some people say "Ok, I download MP3s from net, but if I like about it, i'll buy it"... Ok this might be true as long as the quality is poor enough , but what if quality is good enough (near or equal to CD quality), is there a real reason to buy original? maybe for CDs, you get covers and some fancy stuff with cd, but if one sells music in Internet as MP3s, what do you get? Nothing? so there is no 'real' reason to buy a legimate copy.
Just think, have you ever heard that someone said "gosh, this is a illegal copy, I cannot listen this. I have to buy it!"
I think that real issue here is the ease of distribution, while there is no loss of quality.
-- Reality checks don't bounce.
I don't have time to post a whole rant, but I'l say that I totally agree. You're not conservative, you're sensible.
Ever get sick of streaming media and getting 5 seconds of lag just ruining the whole experience? Think Real*.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
The RIAA hasn't caught up. They live in the 1400's when knowledge==data==music==MP3...etc. where proprietary.
If it doesn't evolve to meet the current conditions, an organism will die -- Just wait in the case of the RIAA.
Population Increase? Legalize murder of stupid people...just thinning out the herd.
Be careful how you respond,
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
This thread was about recording from tape or vinal remember..
Both of those have high noise floors, and aren't all that great to begin with. The mp3's don't degrade this medium noticibly at all..
Most of my cd's I have at 160kb/sec, and tapes and such at anywhere from 64-128kb/sec, depending on content. I find no noticable loss of quality on any of my mp3's compared to the originals (I use notlame for compressing, BTW..)
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
Me.
I have made mp3's from cassettes and records, as the digital copy I have will never degrade unlike the original medium.
Also, as I don't have either a casstte or record player most of the places I listen to music, but do have computers, it's much more convient.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
It is my feeling, being a rocker, that the thrill of performing for a live audience will continue to be a factor in making music. I'm all for the musicians taking control of their own sales and marketing, middle men be damned! :-) It's a watering hole for drunk frat kids who consume mass quantities of Top 40 garbage. :-)
I freely post my music at mp3.com, get very excited that folks in France seem to like it a lot (at least they email more than other folks) and I can feel the seething hate for record companies growing from all sides. MTV sucks, it has sucked since Remote Control.
Fret not over the death of Rock. Music, like knowledge, wants to be free!
http://luxuriousfur.homepage.com
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
About the only thing DeCSS gives to the pirates is the ability to change the distribution format, in particular it's easy to retarget it to VCD. But that's a way worse copy than you got with even third or fourth generation videotape copies and it's not playable by that wide an audience anyway so clearly they can't be worried about that. The only way to match the quality is by stamping more DVDs, and that's possible without decryption.
Clearly there is some other reason they're worried about this.
What CSS is about is content provider control. Ever-dropping costs of delivery technologies is making it easier and easier for new players to get into the media game, and more competition is bad for the established media companies.
Now, with CSS, you have to be a member of The Club to get the keys you need to produce playable content. That dramatically reduces the number of potential competitors because they have to pony up the cash (at a minimum) -- assuming there aren't other membership restrictions.
The real threat with DeCSS is that it's the first step towards breaking the limitations on content production. I mean, what kind of disaster would it be if anyone with talent and a moderate production budget could produce content and sell it mass-market? You have to shudder at the thought.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
jim frost
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
This brings up the question of whether or not a DVD player would actually play unencrypted content. I thought not. Does anyone know for sure?
It makes a huge difference. If they can, then there is really no reason whatsoever for CSS (since verbatim copies work without decryption). If they cannot, then CSS automatically limits who can produce content.
jim frost
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
You're making illegal copies of music and distributing it. What in the hell do you expect people to do? What would you do if you're all of the sudden losing money because of really low record sales because of the distribution of your music on the internet?
Are they losing money?
The SPA tries to make us believe that when n30 the cool haxor downloads MS Office from a warez site, Microsoft loses $500.
I don't believe it. I buy as many CD's as I ever have, I don't download from mp3 sites, but I do make legal mp3's of stuff that I own. Why shouldn't I be able to do that?
The argument that they're putting forth is "because someone may use this technology for unlawful purposes." A fundamental tenet of freedom is that law-abiding people aren't prohibited from performing lawful acts based on the possible unlawful acts of other people. The RIAA would do well to understand that.
Do you have ESP?
This is quite interesting since all this encryption, handshaking et al. crap is adding cost the hardware be it a TV set, in which case the additional cost would only be marginal, or some USB speakers, :-), and they are actually helping them, like Intel. This I am sure this is only possible since some Studios and record labels are part of large consumer electronics or computer hardware manufacturers for example Sony or Philips.
;-). However it will be impossible for me to make some CD-Rs for my car cd changer and I am not the only one who will be pretty pissed of when this comes to pass. Assides from that the genie actually is already out of the botel and they can do what they want but they wont get me to stop using my CD-R drive or to delete my MP3s, which are mostly homemade anyways.
;-) which might actually help them sell more instead of less! I think copy protection might become a real issue when bandwidth is so that we can just mail a complete DVD to just about anybody on this rock, computers are noisless and all sound cards deliver HiEnd quality signals to my stereo.
which would surely be a lot more expensive, since they are pretty cheap from the start. This is especially strange since, for example some graphics card and display manufacturers got all worked up when some flat panel working group (forgot which ) wanted to standardize a connector that would be 1$ instead of 0.5$ (like the old VGA) but which did not only transmit digital display signals but also worked as a analog RGB, USB and Firewire connector. And now the entertainment industry is obviously succeeding in getting manufacturers to add several DOLLARS worth of encryption hardware, which will not have any purpose in normal computer use (other than encrypting my comment on the way from graphics card to display
This shows that there are quite some people working there who are well out of their minds and are unable to learn from errors made by them in the past. Here comes the DVD player to mind which at least here in Europe (I live in Germany) is quite often only sold when it is modified by the vendor to ignores county codes (I would love if the did the same with playstations), since many people are unwilling to wait half a year (or till hell frezes over) to get an American film after it is available in the USA. And imagine what the corporate world will tell hardware manufacturers if they tell them that it has just become 20,000$ more to get those new TFTs for the 5th floor because they need DVI decryption hardware. And if produktion is forked the stuff without decryption won't get any cheaper.
And on piracy this will definetly not change a thing since if you plan to make several million illegal copies of the latest hits you can afford the equipment to make a 1:1 copie of some DVD. Or in the case of music just play it on some HighEnd stereo and rerecord it which will be if done with care is good enough and almost unaudible but might mean that some people wil think that the Record company is trying to save on the mastering and will also hurt their rep while today you cant hear a difference
It would be by far be a lot more usefull if they thought of other ways of selling stuff. For example if I could buy a DVD for 5$ I would probably buy quite a lot and I would get a DVD player in the first place - YOU HEAR ME SONY. And since good blank VHS tapes are not much cheaper would never copie a DVD to tape, or anything like DVD-RAM since I think those are just as much as blanks. And I also know many people who buy CDs just because they heard it on someone elses MP3s at work or got it on a zip(tm) disk. This makes also a lot of sence especally since MP3 are IMHO still just a replacement for the old audio tapes because the quality just does not come close to a CD even at 256kbps and when played over a home stereo since the DAC on almost all sound cards is not even coming close to that in my cd player or for that matter any other decent cdplayer, but they are very nice if you want to be able to listen to music at work if you really dont listen too closely and wont realy notice and dont have to change CDs after 74min. Besides how many people realy use MP3 a lot it certainly is not my mom or dad because they think of their computers as really usefull typwriters which can even scan text and build databases of books and such (my parents both teach -my mom highschool and my dad college ) thing but they would never think of it as a VCR or stereo, you wouldn't belive how surprised my dad was when I showed him an MPEG movie because he would never thought that is possibl. And I think most people are like that and just because of those few people that actually use MP3s to hurt the music industrie (and probably not even intentionaly) it really is not worth the bother to encrypt signals on a bus or whatever other nonsense when they should really worry about some counterfeiting factorys in china.
These people should get this broomstick out of their ass and stop trying to interfere with the computer industry because it is apart from some marginal overlaping (digital recording studios) not their ballpark if it is even the same game and I really dont think anybody will want tell their boss to pay more mony for the serverconsole just because WB thinks somebody is going to use it to copy "the MATRIX" and the University of Tuebingen (Germany) is not going to buy new switchen since they just finished upgrading the whole network to 100MBit to the Desktop and there are quite some expensive ATM switches in between and the "tuenet" is a regular part of the Internet just that it is on one of its many ends. So this is doomed however it looks like they are dumb enough to try it anyways which is quite sad actually. Especally since this will probably backfire since it prevets that I email an MP3 to some friends telling them "this is really good I would buy the CD, too" (okay I might "lend" one of my private copys to realy close friends
In the light of this it becomes obvius how the interest of some devisions in the megacorps hurt others like Sonymusic will sell more cds but Sony CD-R drives are not sold or even worse because of countrycodes Sony cant sell neither DVD players nor DVD movies or AOL Germany (Bertelsmann owns a large chunk of it although i guess this will change after the Time Warner AOL deal) has less users because BMG (Bertelsmann Music Group) or now Warner Music wants them to filter MP3s out of their traffic strange huh? I would just think we see the forming of the corporate big brother and capitalism gone wrong. We really have to be carefull to draw a line to preserve democratie and stop the corporatism to take the right away from the people because that is exactly what hapend in the USSR just that the corporations was the comunist party (okay I might exagerate but just a little). So we should watch them closely and tell them exactly what we want if they do something stupid in the hope that the subdevisions of the Sonys, TimeWarnerAOLs, Philps etc. do what their consumers want and not what some other devision wants them to.
Ulrich Weber
P.S.: In case you wonder about some strange syntax and spelling , English is not my native tongue.
P.S.S: I know that was at least a dime and not just two cents.
--Ulrich
On no accounts allow a Vogon to read poetry at you
A lot of the responses I've seen about this topic seem to be along the lines of "This isn't the same as VHS/Beta, Audio Cassettes, etc. because you can make perfect digital copies and distribute them extremely easily"
While I don't think anybody would deny this, at the same time I think it's important to realize that this is just the next step for how music is distributed. You didn't expect everything to be distributed on bulky analog (or digital for that matter) physical media forever, did you? Should we all just stick with CDs and Audio Tapes because we're afraid of the music industry losing money?
I'll be the first one to say that I think that the RIAA are basically a bunch of big jerks and need to get a life, but you really can't blame them for trying to protect their interests, I just think (as I'm sure tons of other people do) that they're going about it in absolutely the wrong way.
What it really boils down to is this, the growing trend is that consumers /WANT/ freely distributeable, digital media for their music. Now obviously, this sort of screws up the record industry's business plan. But why should the record industry be spared from ever having to evolve? They certainly did quite well even after vinyl disappeared (well, not altogether, but in the mainstream anyway), and who out there beleives that the vast majority of the world's population is going to stop buying CDs overnight and that the record companies are going to go belly up? Granted, this new medium has to potential to take hold much quicker than say, CDs ever did, but it won't happen overnight. I'm don't have an MBA or anything, but I think it makes pretty good sense that if you make it easier for consumers to get what they want, you can make money. That's where the people with MBA's come in.
It may sound ridiculous, but free web pages, e-mail, and news sounded ridiculous at first too, didn't it? The modern american economy has a tremendous ability to adapt to new situations and somehow (don't ask me how) end up making a lot of people rich.
That's my $0.02 worth, anyway.
"In fact, you can still get vinyl, but these formats are no longer easily available."
Vinyl is very easy to get, thanks to the proliferation of DJ's and their turntables. There are places on the net to get them, as well as DJ stores and many big stores are once again selling vinyl 45s.
later
Dan
I just wish I could be the one to find a perfect copy protection and sell it for X dollars.
On a sidenot I consider myself an audiophile and anything above 192kbs sounds damn near CD to me. Just make sure you're not using you're cheap computer speakers. But I still buy just as much music now as I ever did. Mostly on Vinyl however.
I really doubt that any other format will take off. I mean really how many other versions of DVD's are there? LD, VCD is about all I can think of. But even combined they make the slightest fraction of money compared with DVD.
Another example. jpg versus png or other picture formats. Standards are really hard to knock off. And let's face it, Mp3 is standard.
It's accepted. It's popular. And it's here for a long while.
The money is still being spent. People will still have to buy high bandwidth connections or computer upgrades.
Maybe the Recording Industry should start investing in these other areas if they're that greedy.
Most bands are richer than rich, and don't need any more money. And some bands realize this are release full albums on mp3. They don't care about the money they could've received, but have no use for anyway. I respect bands like this.
Some bands still make music because they want to, because they like music. It's them I would rather support.
What is the VCR or photocopier equivalent of Napster? How many people can you "serve" with a single video tape?
The ease and cost of duplication and distribution has dropped to near zero. Someone in the system is going to be cut out and it is perfectly natural (if not necessarily acceptable) for that person to use every tool at his or her disposal to delay the change.
Paul Prescod
Piracy is a perfectly acceptable word to people who feel that the act carries pejorative connotations. Not to be rude, but no propensity of corrections will ever change minds.
What you're asking is akin to informing "pro-life" activists that they should really call themselves "pro-government-mandate." Whatever your views on this matter, it's kind of absurd. What you're really demanding is for people to change their language to suit your own particular ethical/political viewpoints.
Have your own morals! Embrace them! Argue for them! Just don't go all linguistic-war on people that don't.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Someone moderate this up. I thought it was a serious post until I got to the part about the mallet. LOL.
I thought it was a serious post until I got to the part about the mallet. LOL.
It'd be tres simple to have hydrogren/oxygen stored in pure form at home in a granular powder (this technology was existing and working in 1993). This way you'd just have a home station, or perhaps, like gas, oxygen/hydrogen could be sold, and it's very simple to get it from water (either by eletricity or heat, and waste heat is readily available)...
:-)
All the power of gasoline, with all the impact of electricity.. I like it
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
When you copy a tape/vcr, you physically make it, and physically distribute it. When you do so with an mp3, it's just a file on your computer. It takes one click to download/upload/play it. Of course you can make illegal copies on tape players and vcr's, but they're not half as easy to obtain/make as mp3's
Are they losing money?
Of course they're losing money. Maybe not the large sums of money they claim to be losing, but they're losing it none the less. Have you ever bought a CD just to get one song? Maybe you haven't, but I have, and alot of other people have. Sooner or later, as the quality of mp3 increases, you can get a perfect copy of that song from your local napster server, with your big-bandwidth dsl/cable modem connection. You no longer have a reason to buy that CD. Look, I'm not really siding with the RIAA, or anyone for that matter. I'm just saying, you're losing money, and no matter what the real amount is, are you gonna sit back and lose revenue due to some easily piratable quality music format without a fight?
I'd hope that if you were in their position you would answer NO to that question.
My guess is, if someone is willing to pirate software, music, or movies, they're not planning on buying it, even if it weren't available pirated.
Yeah, but....
Mp3's efficiently make pirates out of everyone. It's so easy, and isn't the kind of thing that you're going to jail for. Copying a video is a little different than downloading an mp3. People dont' really think of files on a computer as property. I don't think i have anything else to add to this topic though... I'm tired and I need at least 5 hours of sleep.
I agree that these organizations should go after piracy rather than the technology. I feel, however, that this can be accomplished economically.
New VHS movies typically cost between $10 and $20, while DVDs average between $15 to $30. The average consumer will only buy a few movies a year. If I'm gonna drop $25 on a movie, it'd better be one I want to see several times, and not many movies meet that criteria. (I am "stocking" my new DVD library, but I can still only afford so many)
Now imagine that the industry cut their prices down to five bucks per movie, reducing their margins to an absolute minimum. At $5ish, I'd buy every movie I saw in a theater and remotely liked: easily ten or more videos a year.
If the industry's profit were only $2 per movie and sales increased fivefold, they'd still net roughly the same profit -- and they'd curb piracy since it would be easier just to buy the movie.
Now consider the rental market. If movies cost as much to buy as to rent, nobody given the choice would rent. Rental stores represent a major source of revenue for the film industry, so the moneymakers definitely wouldn't like this, right? Except that video rentals probably won't be around for much longer anyway: on-demand viewing appears to be the wave of the future.
The video people need to suck all of the profit out of their media while they can, and stop nit-picking about copy protection before it all becomes moot anyway.
Piracy is going to be the downfall of the internet. -- no if you want to see the downfall .. go here http://downfall.oftheinter.net
There's always the issue that most people will find that keeping music on their HD is much more susceptible to loss than if they have a physical disk in their hands. Hell, I just downloaded 8 Gigs of material of Napster this week and burned it onto CD's. Why? Well, ease of transfer between work and home, but also because all it takes is one bad day and there goes the HD and all that music I downloaded.
Physical media will ALWAYS exist, but I suspect in the future it will be as more of a backup device. The big question right now is, who the hell has the time to do this stuff most of the time? I sure don't. We all know that the feasibility of transfering DVDs over the Net is that it isn't, yet the damn movie industry was up in arms because they exepected to loose revenue due to pirates (yeah, it's happened, but only with a small number of zealots).
This is how things work though. They put in as much copy protection as to make it annoying, we crack it and a small amount of us will try before we buy, with another percentage of us outright stealing stuff (I'll admit, I don't own legal copies of all that stuff I downloaded from Napster). However, to Bob and Jane Public, it's just too much damn hassel and they'll continue to pay for the stuff. And some of us will also because we will want a copy that is more permanent than what our virus scanners are protecting us from. In the end, the system will change not a bit, and we'll all be 80 years old and visiting Slashdot 2050 and bitching about how outrageous prices are how the entertainment industry seems to be taking over the world.
=I am Jack's general protection fault=
Good points, especially the last sentence -- the RIAA are middlemen and dinosaurs, and the Internet kills off middlemen. The only thing left is the consumer and the musician.
I have a few questions, though, about what happens to the artist. Specifically, the kind of artist that is signed, marketed, and tours to support an overpriced CD, the income of which dribbles through the clutches of the middlemen to drip admittedly-tiny-but-still-significant droplets into the artist's bank account. I'm not worried about garage bands, indie rockers, accoustic duos in Barnes 'n' Noble, and other poor musicians -- we'll never make real money anyway, unless we're supremely talented.
That leaves "big rock stars", or "people who can live off of playing music". I worry that when the record companies are made moot, there won't be the ridiculous amount of money hoarded from consumers and turned into a subsidy for a few big bands to promote tours and support CD sales. Hell, there won't be CD's left to sell. Since I like the circus atmosphere of "big USA rock 'n' roll shows", I wonder how this atmosphere can be produced from the income of a few hundred clicks on the band's website.
As much as record companies are the devil, once they go, the fake-ass music industry goes, and rock stars go, too.
I don't *want* everything to be DIY. I don't *want* an inclusive musical scene. If I wanted an inclusive musical scene, I'd have invited you to join the band. Shit, if there's no pot 'o stardom at the end of the rainbow for the struggling, hopeful, ego-driven musician to shoot for, we should all just go back to working at the mills.
I guess the question I have is this -- assuming RIAA dies, the record companies fold, the oligarchical business model of price-fixing, hype-building, and payola dies, and the entire "rock way of life" suffers the entropy death of too many consumers cheapening too much product by too much copying and linking and downloading, how is a rock band supposed to ROCK? Banner Ads???
I don't think the original poster was suggesting " that copyright should be taken outside and shot". I found his points to be quite good.
I also think your analogies could be polished a bit. For example, the tomatoes wouldn't be stolen. That would be like the original work be hacked from the musicians computer. Rather, the original tomatoes were bought from the grower, then the seeds were replanted and distributed by someone else (doesn't matter if its for free or money). It doesn't affect your use of the product of your labor, but it does limit your ability to make money from it -which leaps into a current contentious issue with one of the large agro companies that's developed a "terminator" gene that causes the seeds to be sterile, thus guarentying the company many returning customer.
Your example of forging an identity misrepresents one of his main points. Forging an identity should be prohibitted for issues that go beyond a question of copyright. What needs to be considered is why do we copyright, how does society benefit, and how can such a rule be implemented and at what cost?
Face it. The major record labels are running scared from MP3 and any other technology that has the potential to cut them out of the distribution loop. The advent of the internet and digital media represent a pardigm shift in the way media is distributed. I think we will begin to see more artists taking advantage of this technology to distribute and promote their own work. No longer will they be slaves to the labels, earning a mere fraction of the royalties and getting exposure at the whim of an executive only interested in maximizing profit by capitalizing on the next "formula" group (Back Street Boys anyone?) Consumers can only benefit from this as they will gain access to more varied music at much cheaper prices. I for one would much rather purchase music by the song over the internet knowing that the artists will get the lion's share of the profit. An artist could charge just a few cents per download and still make vastly more than they currently make under the yoke of the all-powerful label. As the price of music drops, pirating will become less of a problem since it will cost so little to download legal music directly from the artist. The recording companies, if they wish to survive, need to wake up to this reality and discover new revenue streams. I think they still have a roll to play in live music promotion and other models not tied to distribution, but it will take creativity and innovation on their part to make this happen.
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
It'll never happen. If one thing has been shown to be true, legislation cannot keep up with the advance of technology. They can put in place whatever safeguards they want and in time they will be circumvented. Nothing short of banning data networks could eliminate the free and easy distribution of digital data.
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
That would be a real cool invention, some highly compressed alcoholic beverage that you could discreetly carry around until when needed, when it would rapidly expand into a shot and force itself down your throat. Entrepeneurs?
lf.o
Is that copying stuff will make it to the average idiot. Someone will always DeCSS or whatever. The average idiot doesn't have two tape decks or two VCR's next to eachother to dupe stuff.
MP3's are laking it to the average idiot now, compared to three years ago when there was hardly a player for windows yet. The million screaming girlies who bought their copy of ricky martin didn't download the mp3. Someday soon they might though. for a lot of them it's still "mp3 sucks. it takes 40 minutes to download one song." The screaming girls control the record industry and the record industry pretends it has authority over the market.
Are you buying the data of a song when you buy the CD, or are you only buying permission to listen to the sounds?
Looks like my.mp3.com are about to test this. They have ripped 10,000 CDs and wil give you access to the MP3s if you prove you have the original - either by putting it in your CD-ROM drive or buying it online. Should be an interesting court case.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
It isn't impossible to buy a DAT deck today, they are just not marketed to consumers, I could walk into SamAsh(A musician's store) and have my pick of about 20 different DAT decks. They do start at about $US 600 though. The DAT drive is now used only in pro studios and the like, where technologies such as ADAT(20-bit recording on SVHS tape) and Hard Disk recording are quickly overtaking the DAT deck. Also 8mm tapes are also used in backup drives, but you don't see camcorders failing
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
I know I personally have bought many cd's after first hearing a song or two on MP3. I think MP3's are helping much more then hindering the music industry. Now, I can download a song and see if it appeals to me, instead of laying down 15 bucks for a cd I *might* like. I'd say 25-40% of my cd purchases are based on exposure to new stuff via MP3. Yeah, the MP3's I downloaded were pirated from copyrighted material. But in the end, it benefitted the producer and made them money.
Ello? Ello?
How come everyone is so satisfied with mp3 quality? I can barely listen to music chewed upon by mp3 compression. Bit for bit perfect? As far as copying is concerned maybe, but it certainly will take another type compression to fool my ears.
Or does everybody use lo-fi pc audio anyway nowadays?
Djeez.
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars
The January edition of Dr Dobbs has an article by a guy who converted 300 CDs to MP3, and put them all on a $180 Hard Disk, for a "home Jukebox". Thats 60 cents per CD. Given that MP3s can be copied an infinite number of times without loss, and can be easily distributed electronically, either on web pages, or simply emailing them to your friends, it's hardly surprising that the recording industry is worried. Piracy is just so much easier in digital form. Of course, copy protection is not the solution, there's far too many clever hackers out there. Now if CDs cost, say, $5, most people wouldn't bother pirating them, they'd buy their own. Eventually the market will force this, but the recording companies won't like it.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
why should it be illegal??? I can go buy a car and take it apart, there is no illegal activity there??? Then I could go and find all the parts and build me another car, exactly the same in every detail, to the car that I bought. Nothing illegal there!!! That is loosely what pirating music and movies is all about. Why should it be any different?? I dont mind supporting the actual artist who made the media, but the money I would pay would go straight to lining the pockets of a record company or a movie company?? (well, the movie companies do make the movies and then they distribute them so I guess that I dont mind that). Really if you break it dowm, these are just estimates, of a 15 dollar CD, $1.50 to the artist, 50c for CD and Jewel Case, $2 to the store that sells it, $5 for labour off everything. This leaves $6 for the record label, all of which would probably be profit. I have no regret pirating anything (not that I do or anything). And for this DeCSS stuff, good, I am all for it. The company or organization that is sueing all of you (half of you are probably reading the ask slashdot aritcle now), should go to hell, information is free. If anyone thinks otherwise they can go kiss my ass. If the info is not free, then we take it and alter it in anyway we please (as long as we are not reselling it) Big Companies can shut up and go to hell (including micros~1).
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Who would rip MP3s from a cassette or record? I'm willing to bet that if it weren't possible to create perfect copies from a CD, there would be a lot fewer MP3s around, and a lot less demand for them. That's what the music industry wants.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
The regional thing is not really a problem - I just bought a DVD orientated magazine and 90% of the player adverts indicated that an "all region" version of a player was available. The conversion kits were advertised for approx. $50 each.
There are problems a) most people haven't even heard about MP3s and as they can't even set their VCR clocks would be totally confused with the concept of downloads. b) the first few people who download the album will just put it on a server and give it away for free.
But are people that dishonest? Some are, but does that mean that everybody should be treated as potentially dishonest? Of course not. Chase the guys in black hats and don't bother the rest of us.
I wish that someone like David Bowie would test the waters and break away from the distribution companies. Whatever the result, it would be interesting.
I have to agree with you the real problem for the RIAA is the fact that a certain segment of the population has come to relize that they can put together a vast music collection with little or no monetary investment. I admit to having a little over ten thousand mp3 songs from my days of living in a dorm room with ethernet. Hell, I admit that everytime I walk into a record store these day I think back to my collection of mp3 albums I have never even had the time to listen to. I still do buy some albums, like many other people have posted mp3s have "exposed" me to new bands I hadn't heard of, however these new bands are normally on very small indie labels at cheaper rates(5-10 bucks) than the big labels, so even then my money doesn't end up going to any RIAA members. It is my opinion that in another 3-4 years it will be rather average for teenagers to have these gigantic music collections. The big record companies need to either find a way to to influence the government into trying to slow down progress or else find another way of marketing music at a vastly cheaper price so that people can legitimately build up huge collections of music. Frankly I'm just glad I don't have a job in the record industry.
Never mind
All opinions are my own - until criticized
A major artist makes around 30-50 cents/pence per cd from what I hear. The exact amount depends on various things, such as their particular contract, whether they wrote the song as well as performed it, their manager's cut etc. As for concerts being major money spinners - it all depends. Someone like Celine Dion could I am sure make a fortune. Basically you hire an arena, fill it at £30 a pop, and the only real overheads are security, tech and maybe some session players. Compare that with something like a Pet Shop Boys tour. These are notorious for losing fortunes...their first one cost them personally nearly £1m. It's not that the arenas were empty - just that to fix a sensible ticket price and put on the kind of show they wanted to deliver they knew they would have to subsidise it. Talk about looking after your fans!
BTW : The Chem's are one of the finest live acts you'll ever experience. Probably only bettered by the Prodigy
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Actually not true (at least not in the UK, and I think US & UK are quite close on this issue). Making a copy and distributing a copy are both seperate crimes. For instance consider this : I make 10 copies of a CD for my personal use, and someone else breaks into my house and steals them. He then sells them on to someone else. I am guilty of making the copies, he of distributing them.
A case in point, I went to my companies repro desk today to get a copy of a document which was given to me by a supplier. I wanted the copy so that I could scribble on it and not ruin the original. They said they couldn't legally copy it without a letter of authorisation from the copyright owner (i.e. the supplier). And this is a US company...
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
No it is not theft. Neither is it purely theft nor simply theft. The person from who you derived your copy still has their original and therefore they have _NOT_ suffered a loss. Without loss, theft is a very difficult legal paradigm to sustain.
This is the reason why the IP zealots piss themselves every time the non marginal cost of copying falls into the realms of consumer prices because it means that they can no longer rely on physical constraints to enforce their fictional propoerty rights, and so they must turn to some legal fiction (or cultural ones such as the MP3 is theft meme mentioned elsewhere).
The "Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals" section of the GNU Manifesto should be read as a starter before coming back with "Oh yes it is".
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
... that address the needs of the vendors as well as the users (oops - that's embarassing...)
"I'm disrespectful to dirt! Can you see I am serious?"
Apparently people are a little on edge around here lately.... Legality issues aside, there are a growing number of search sites that are "endorsing" pirated music by way of having huge indexes of MP3s, many of which, undoubtedly are pirated. One that sticks out in my mind is the MP3 search on Lycos, powered by Fast Search and Transfer ASA, the same people that brought us AllTheWeb. Then there is Napster, an MP3 lovers dream (sorry to keep referencing this ad nauseam.) There was much publicity, at least among the /. Community about the suit filed against our buddies over at Napster, no doubt it'll get thrown out (it may have already, I'm not sure) because there is the concept that Napster is simply providing a vehicle for search, location and subsequent download of MP3s, and never takes physical, or even legal possession of the data. Basically, they, and other such sites, services and software, are conduits and, in acting as such, are not violating any law. I think there is a distinct possibility that we might begin to see the tides turn on these types of issues. After all, how many times in the past year or two have we been hearing about class action suits against other types of "conduits" for other activities. Gun manufacturers, tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers. Although there is a substantial difference between manufacturing a weapon used in a deadly crime and providing an avenue to procure a music track that you do not own and possibly do not intend to pay for, where is the line drawn. I am not predicting that there will be huge class action suits by large numbers of music artists or record concerns, but noting a potential for some legal actions to at least by subject to closer scrutiny by the judicial system. Until then, there is going to be a lot of back and forth on issues such as encryption technology, legal liability for sites linking to and referencing certain MP3s and other media files, and there's going to be a lot of money to be made as an intellectual property and copyright attorney. The industry is too new for self regulation, whether this means that the government will step up its battle or technological advances on protection technology will speed up to stop the gap remains to be seen. All of this of course, IMHO
"I'm disrespectful to dirt! Can you see I am serious?"
Well, I do apologize for the spelling errors, I will try and include more grammatical safeguards in the future. I will keep this brief as I feel replying to a comment simply to rant is rather pointless, nevertheless, I have brought myself to your level and thus will attempt to eloquently address your attempt to impugn my opinion. First, I apologize for being hypocritical in referencing history, however, you will notice that I did not go into as much detail as the original post that spurred my reply. On being hypocritical, I see that you are not a fan of insulting intelligence, therefore, I ask that you not insult mine, your pithy comments, though well taken as criticism, are frivolous and as dilatory in nature as any that take dicussion threads off subject. Additionally, my comment on the declining quality of Slashdot, well, thank you for helping me prove my point Chicken Little. As for the karma, I can see that you don't believe in it, you are a far more practical person, one that worries about things that might affect you in a more tangible way, hence your reluctance to include an identity with your wonderful comments. Oh, and I apologize for not numbering mine, be assured it was a great help in reading yours. Keep those cards and letters coming!
"I'm disrespectful to dirt! Can you see I am serious?"
Agreed, that is one of the big issues surrounding this whole thing, the idea that whatever gets designed as a safeguard will be overcome by a new innovation by the "black market." Until this cylce stops, RIAA and their affiliate are going to be pouring money into the bottomless pit that is copyright protection for media.
"I'm disrespectful to dirt! Can you see I am serious?"
I think that is a good compliment/add-on to what I worte (not to say that one of our comments had more merit than the other) I think you're right, and I did think of the blatency (hello...Napster) I mean, I love Napster, but I often think of how pissed off it must make record execs. I did note the whole thing about the ever-growing community of MP3-ers but, after all, if my dad is going to copy music, he is going to tape it, not get the MP3. I think there is a still-larger majority of people out there who do not use MP3, may know that it's wrong due to all the bad press , but who will still tape a friend's CD, becasue they simply do not see the connection. And now I sound like a bleeding heart for the RIAA, which is the level I did NOT want to bring playing Devil's Advocate to... oh well, must be my conscience, as a matter of fact, I have to go load another playlist into WinAmp, this one just ran out - how appropriate
"I'm disrespectful to dirt! Can you see I am serious?"
The argument you are making presents me with certain thoughts such as: - you are a shallow reader - You missed the points of the majority of the posts you defamed - you give fellow /.'ers no credit - and "let's get a reality check" ok....Mom Seriously, there are a lot of pertinetn issues being brought to the table here, most of which are missed (as I notice they get buried under self-righteous bullshit such as your post) and I think that the overall "answer" that has been reached is that there are so many issues that come up when discussing such a topic, that it is impossilbe to simply side with the "goood guys" or "bad guys." It'll be a long time until there are outlets for media distribution online that meet the specs of users and vendors.
"I'm disrespectful to dirt! Can you see I am serious?"
I heave read all of the myriad opinions, agreeing with some, disagreeing with others and becoming plain outraged at some of the evangelical tones some took in asserting a plainly unoriginal point of view. I think that the overall "answer" that has been reached is that there are so many issues that come up when discussing such a topic, that it is impossilbe to simply side with the "goood guys" or "bad guys." It'll be a long time until there are outlets for media distribution
"I'm disrespectful to dirt! Can you see I am serious?"
Combined with...
The Mass distribution avalible through Computer Networks. With Tape's and Cassetes being only distributable through physical means, snail mail and person to person contact. The internet and lans, which have started to propigate our world, allow the distribution without physical contact or any real time delay (depending on bandwidth)
The Culmanation of these two result in a situation where the original content producers material can be distributed much further than its initial medium and with out its control.
------------------------------------
The catch 22 that the publishing industry (recording labels, film industry, book publishers, etc) finds itself in is quite interesting (not to mention a bit funny). If something is distributed, in any format, (from verbal to print to mp3), it is reproducable (granted, some methods of distribution don't lend to reproduction well). If its reproducable, then the publisher/distributor looses money every time a reproduction is made, and distributed that they did make/distribute (aka piracy). When they loose money, they complain that the distribution format is flawed (insecure, not as good as format X, etc), and that they will now use a new distribution format, which is better (and it is). But then the new distribution format is also reproducible, so they start over. The publishers/distributors continue to chase their own tail this way, in an attempt to squeeze 100% of the revenue out of their customers (ie no piracy). yet they cannot do this, becuase its impossible to create a distribution format that cannot be pirated. thus, the tail chase can end if one of two things happen. 1) All distributions become free (If only we were socialists...) 2) All piracy ends. The only way to end piracy, is to distribute in a format which cannont be reproduced, which cannot happen. Thus, the only way to stop piracy is to stop distribution, which takes us back to solution 1. Shall I call you comrade now?
Fish
I think what bothers me the most about the whole issue isn't so much that the RIAA wants to protect itself. That I can understand, being a business oriented individual. But then, consider this:
I got bored, so I built my own MP3 player that has a few nifty features that I get a rise out of. No biggie. I don't typically swipe music. I buy it and encode it. I'm probably not typical in this respect, but that's me.
I then take this reasonably sized collection of legally owned music and play it on my nifty MP3 player. No big deal, at least for me.
But if the RIAA has its way...
...am I, as a hobbyist, going to realistically be able to do what I'm doing now?
I don't like the idea of that power being taken from me. Much like many others here, I would gladly pay the artist directly for songs - it's better than buying CD's, in fact. But I really don't care that CD's cost $18 a pop. I care that I can listen to them the way -I- want to listen to them, and the technologies that the RIAA is proposing (with the presumed goal of killing MP3) are threatening that ability.
--ZS
-- sigs cause cancer.
Let's take a step back for a moment and look at their real concerns. They are afraid that people will copy music without paying for it, depriving artists and companies of their due. This is no different to software piracy.. I have always believed, and still maintain, that protecting something against piracy is a wasted effort.. why? Remember the c64? The most successful home computer of all time was also the centre of software piracy for many years. Did companies not make a fair wad of cash? Yes they did. I also believe that anyone who copies games, music or whatever on any scale whatsoever almost *certainly* would *not* buy the originals if piracy was not possible... I have 400 disks of c64 games, approx 2000 altogether... would I have bought 2000 games retail? never... did I buy retail games anyway? Yes, I still have boxed versions of Elite, sensi-tennis, Gunship etc... OK, now consider the PSX. Copy-protection scheme wasnt difficult to crack, and is a cheap and easy hardware mod... People are playing CDR copies of PSX games all over the world... Would they have bought them anyway? Nope, they probably wouldnt have bought a PSX in the first place... same reason why the c64 was so successful...piracy was widespread and games were easy to come by. Same with VHS movies. People copy them all the time... would they have bought them? Unless it was in the $5 second hand box at the local video store, I sincerely doubt it. People who want the manuals and glossy boxes (and in the case of CDs, the nice printed inserts with lyrics) will buy the originals.... people who dont care and wouldnt spend $30 on a cd will copy it... Copy protection doesnt make them buy the originals, they either crack the protection or dont bother (which is why the PSX is more successful than the N64...) Copy protection is a waste of time and resources...and saves *nothing* Think about it
Simon
The real linux_penguin has Slashdot ID 101961. Anyone else is an impostor. Including Bruce Perens.
If I could download the one or two good songs that usually show up on an album then I would gladly pay the artist a dollar a song. They would be much better off, I would be much better off and the RIAA would be out of buisiness this is what really scares them.
They are not really losing money by people listening to mp3's. People can hear much of the same music for free over the radio. Just like everyone else if I find an album that I like I buy it. Then I can sit at home and listen to it on my cd player or in my car or when I go camping on a portable cd player.
I like certain bands and although I preview their songs on mp3 if I like them I buy them. And for all of you out there mp3's are not as high quality as cds.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
This is another thing that record companies fear. They fear that people will develope taste and quit buying into their mindless marketing schemes. Someday soon bands with real talant will be able to offer their music directly to the public so cheaply that we will never want to pirate music.
Who would want to go to the trouble of finding a perfect blind guardian mp3 when you could go to their website and download it for 50 cents. The artist would actually make more money and the consumer would save money as always happens when you get rid of the middle men.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
... The RIAA will scream about losing money to recordings. They screamed about the Audio Cassette, back in the day. They stopped DAT technology cold in its tracks. They screamed about VHS/Beta tapes, but never got behind laser disks. They yelled and hollered about CD-R's too. At least they didn't have anything to do with stopping the Mini-disk(R) technology. Sony did that all on their own.
now i actually have to BUY a game!
damn quake 3 cd keys.
'Mullethead. A hairstyle that's a way of life'
I liked the idea about a low price would be a useful way to keep people from stealing. It is the cost that creates the value to the underground market.
To expand on your point, it is in fact cheaper for recording companies to produce CDs than cassette tapes. They justify the higher price tag because CDs don't degrade in quality with each play as cassette tapes do. Of course, that doesn't really blur the reality that the record companies have engaged in price-fixing for years since, in addition to CDs costing less then cassettes, they can also fit alot more music on CDs but don't.
I, too, am holding out for a stored digital format. I've looked at mini-discs since Denon now has a dual mini-disc component that can copy disc-to-disc in pure digital format with song title information display, allow you to change the order of songs on the disc in addition to endless reusability by deleting and re-recording.
Regards.
- tokengeekgrrl
IMHO, the true reason the TV industry, (and other industries) are so worried about people copying thier stuff digitally is not becuase the are worried about the initial copy from broadcast to your media, it is the subsequent transfers that they worry about. FOr example, after the matrix is shown as a movie on TV, if u make a digital copy, you can then give an EXACT replica to all of your friends, and they could give it to all thier friends, etc. On the flip side, if the whole process was analog, there would be a noticiable difference in the quality after every copy. Other industries have already realized this danger and have taken REASONABLE steps against it. For example, you are not aloud to create a potable minidisc player that has a digital output. However, there is no restriction to home units. This way, the record companies don't have to be concerned that people are running aroung making EXACT replicas of thier music. The TV industry needs to come up with a set of reasonable guidelines like these. What the SHOULDN'T do is try to not allow the data to be stored digitally, or encrypt it (Ahem, DeCSS) etc. Instead, they should reach a COMPORMISE --Alex the Fishman, the coherent superposition
We need some good hybrids. Something that can take the place of the electric type commuter car, and the gasoline vehicle capable of travelling 300 miles nonstop and "recharging" in minutes. I've heard of some things about using fuel cells to generate the electricity. They would be refuelable like gasoline cars. Sounds good to me.
I think the music industry will need to incorporate more value-added features into their products to beat music piracy. Think about it, what's the number one reason for purchasing a DVD in place of copying it? value-added features... As long as the consumer copying technology is one step behind the record industry, consumers will purchase cd's/video/whatever to get the added benefits. You're seeing this in DVD's already.. Yes, you can copy dvd's, but you lose alot of quality, and you definately lose alot of the bonus features; for this reason people will continue to purchase dvd's.. The music/video industry needs to make purchasing a product more attractive to the consumer then copying it..
According to RIAA.org : Latin Music Piracy Fifty percent of all product seized by midyear 1999 was Latin repertoire. The RIAA is fighting Latin music piracy with a retail initiative that focuses on educating retailers, raising the level of awareness in certain communities across the country, and by bringing criminal and civil actions against traditional outlets for selling unauthorized sound recordings. My point is - - Can this be defined as a valid reason to have Ricky Martin and Enrique Iglesias banned by penalty of public beating if you are found with some form of song of theirs? Maybe we could have them both shipped to Mars where they would be more appreciated.
-what exactly was "alternative" about those so-called 'alternative bands'?
You are correct. I did not meant to imply that you can't get new releases on cassete tape, but its not easy to do. I live in Indianapolis which is a pretty decent sized city and no local stores carry cassetes (well, not new releases). However, I'm pretty sure you can probably find them on the internet. In fact, you can still get vinyl, but these formats are no longer easily available.
I have a solution to the issue of cd covers, it's called borrowing the cd, copy it and while it's copying place the cover on a flat bed scanner, print out via inkjet printer onto photo glossy paper. There ya go cd with cover, cost? Take your buddy out to taco bell. who needs the inside info, I don't care who they dedicate the freakin cd to.
Say, for example, that this was the only way movies were avaliable. I turn on my TV, select Star Wars: A New Hope, and press play. And everything is great. Except when the Special Edition movies are made. What if Lucas were to decide that these were how the original movies were really supposed to be, and that only the special edition would be avaliable? Would I be happy? Not a chance. I want to own my music and movies, even when they never exist in relation to a physical medium.
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
Nice to see someone pointing out the important distinction.
The FCC probably thinks that since every company is having a hissy fit about DeCSS, MP3's, yadda yadda, that it has to as well. If private companies are afraid that their stuff will be copied and reproduced, then they won't embrace the technology. Also, digital in the eyes of idiots (a.k.a. recording industry and broadcasters) means easier to duplicate and redistribute.. If someone records something on their VCR, they are probably going to keep it themselves or lend it out on occasions.. Not too many people will make a digital copy. However, if they have a digital stream and can download a crack/program that will copy it to their computer, instantly that user can share a perfect copy of whatnot with the world, no special hardware or time needed. While I don't think they have a right for all of this copy protection crap, I can at least understand where they are coming from.
Well, IMO, things are just the way they are. It is in the general best intrest of the companies that are represented in the RIAA to have thier legal representatives lobby for the control of layer-3 audio, because of the rampant "piracy" of music on the internet (the digital equivalent of getting a copy of a taped album off you buddy.. esentially, how different is it?)
Now the FCC, probably backed and pressured by companies that is *thier* best intrests to control the distribution of digital video, are calling for copy protection of digital tv. I mean, what's really stopping someone from jimmying thier box to thier computers and ripping the programmnig to mpeg? Not much, and if there is right now, then it probably won't be for long.
It's the same old same old, where large companies fight and struggle as they lose thier grip on a monopoly of a distribution format. Only thing now is it's happening on a digital level instead of a analog level. It makes more news now too because it spreads faster.
Well, IMO, things are just the way they are. It is in the general best intrest of the companies that are represented in the RIAA to have thier legal representatives lobby for the control of layer-3 audio, because of the rampant "piracy" of music on the internet (the digital equivalent of getting a copy of a taped album off you buddy.. esentially, how different is it?)
Now the FCC, probably backed and pressured by companies that is *thier* best intrests to control the distribution of digital video, are calling for copy protection of digital tv. I mean, what's really stopping someone from jimmying thier box to thier computers and ripping the programmnig to mpeg? Not much, and if there is right now, then it probably won't be for long.
It's the same old same old, where large companies fight and struggle as they lose thier grip on a monopoly of a distribution format. Only thing now is it's happening on a digital level instead of a analog level. It makes more news now too because it spreads faster.
*/rant*
Does my mp3 collection become legal now? I think it does.
I paid my levy to RIAA. They kept most of it and sent some to the artists who sell the most music. Seems to me that by paying a levy to RIAA copping any kind of music onto this CD is perfectly legal.
What happens if I copy data onto the cd? Can I get a refund on the levy?
Need a website host? Try out http://WebQualityHost.net
You will never be rich, until you are dead.
Painters have fessed-up to this fact, why can't RIAA?
"God does not play dice with the universe." -Albert Einstein
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
It really does seem like a stretch for big media corporations to say that preventing the copying of a Backstreet Boys mp3 file will "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."
tlauf
I realize that what im saying may be a late post and probably not read by most people, but im going to say it anyway. I simply don't think MP3's are harmful, let me explain why. I myself am a criminal, i guess, i download mp3s, but this is the twist. I listen to ALOT of punk rock (it's my thing, i realize it's not for everybody...anyway) after i download a few mp3s from a band, if i really like them i usually go out and buy the cd. I support the bands i like, i realize not everybody thinks this way, but if you really like somebody's music, you'll support them by purchasing their CD's because if you don't, they may not make anymore! Sometimes the best way to get somebody to do something, is instead of FORCING them to buy your stuff, let them buy it on their own. A prime example, the band NOFX, now this was a while ago and i don't know if it's still this way, but speaking from the past, they had a link to an MP3 archive with EVERY SINGLE album they had ever put out in mp3 format. i could have downloaded their newest cd, probably, but instead i bought it. Maybe im a dying breed, but i know there are more people out there like me. Sometimes i worry that mp3s could hurt the music industry, but then i realize that up to this point, i think it has only helped it. Although with the release of portable mp3 players(Diamond Rio), and portable cdplayers that can play mp3s (mambox), maybe im wrong.
All I can say is we should all really thank the media, for without them the growth of MP3's wouldn't have continued at such a great rate, now I can find anything I want extremely easily as opposed to pre media hype where it was hrmm a good mp3 site...
-- Insert witty comment here --
It has already been tried to produce digital systems that permitted first-generation copies (SCMS on CDs for instance), but that has already failed
The problem is rather that most people will never pay for what they can get for free. Other people with the same attitude will produce mechanisms to break this "protection"
Even though I may not agree with the pricing of music, The Artists still have a right to receive payment for their work, just as a professional programmer has a right to receive payment for his job. Surely noone can disagree with that?
Even though I also think that part of the problem is caused by the Music Industry themselves with a pricing structure that is totally off the scale (In Norway, where I post from, the normal retail price for an album is equivalent to $15 - $20). If the prices were let's say halved I think more people would buy music, and not bother with long download times.
http://virtuelvis.com/
I like this idea a lot, I would moderate you up if I had points :)
Does anyone know how much an artist makes off a CD sale? I often hear it is so little that even big bands get most of their money from gigs - the CDs are just good promotion (and good money for the execs). Hell... what else could explain a Chemical Brothers tour?? :)
Anyway, that might just be urban myth. It would be nice to actually know so that I know I am paying the artist more. Anyone have some real figures? I would actually consider this ethical, as you are not costing the record company any distribution costs (you covered the distribution costs yourself) and distribution is all that they *should* be getting money for.
-It pisses off legitimate users, this isn't true of all schemes but do you trust the RIAA to get it right?
Take for example regional coding on DVDs, I am in a country where video rental stores have DVD shelves where half the DVDs are zone 4 and the other half zone 1 (but all mixed together). You can buy regionless players but the main appliance stores don't sell them - and more importantly, you have to be clued up enought about DVD to specifically ask for one. Otherwise you find you can't play the movie you payed for (or, if you're 'lucky', you have to do dumbass things with the remote control to change zones).
You can't email a videotape to your friends -- that's the biggest difference. If you could dial the phone and have a VCR delivered for free, and there were big buckets of videotapes lining the streets, then despite the analog nature of VHS copies I'm sure the recording industry would be equally up in arms.
No I think the value-added stuff he's referring to (on audio CDs) isn't multimedia crap (which is always -- literally -- *crap*) but stuff like the CD cover art and the inserts.
Hey, I know some pretty hot chicks that are really into guys like Stephen Hawking!
(kidding)
According to John Locke's theory, One has a right to what one creates as an result of one's labour. For example, Linux belongs to Linus, because he created it. ( With the help of zillions of others, of course ). Rolling Stones have a moral right to whatever they create because they have put labour in creating it. However, in the modern market-oriented economy, one can buy another's fruit of labour. That is the reason that the work of Rolling Stones belong to the Recording Company.
The customer is only buying the right to listen to the work, and certainly has no conceivable right to make copies or anything of that nature.
I agree with your next point. When I buy a CD, I only have a right to the CD I buy. Because, when I bought the CD, I paid for the content and and the media. However, the content does not belong to me, although the media does. I have only been given a license to use ( in this case listen ) to the media.
Now for the Plan
There is a word in the dictionary called privacy. For many of us privacy matters a lot. Privacy is necessary for relationships of intimacy and trust. Privacy is aslo the basis of democracy. No body knows whom I voted for at the last election, and nobody shall know whom I am going to vote for at the next. This gives me autonomy as an individual.
How can I enjoy my privacy when the government knows each and everything I copy. I do not want the government to know what I discuss at home with my (future) wife. The same way, I do not want the government to know what I am copying.
he record companies have a compelling interest here, sorry. If we allow copying, we'll be destroying their incentives and the economy will be in flames within the week. I have a better solution. Recording companies are middle men. They earn money buy selling other peoples work. If we have a system where by the artists themselves can release their music, we will have
The only feasible way of doing that is by releasing music in the form of MP3s on the internet.
Unless we are thinking of different things, you are comparing two different groups of people. These 'copy lists' I assume are groups of people who exchange bootlegged concerts. These are not commercial recordings. These are usually homemade recordings done by people who attended the concerts. The record company, artists, etc lose no money. Some bands, like Phish, even encourage taping.
Midwest is Best
There are many many many audio lovers out there who would reject your statement. For them, analogue all the way is the ideal. Hell, some of them would even desire that no transistors are used in the entire change (tubes baby). I see 100 percent where they are coming from. I have a decent stereo in the $2000 range (all picked up use). I had only a CD player and a couple hundred CD's. I picked up a used turntable for $150, and now, especially with jazz and classical, I only purchase the CD when I can't find it on LP.
Midwest is Best
If you make a copy, that is theft - pure and simple - you have taken something which is not yours. You can try and hide your actions by cloaking it in phrases like 'making a backup', or it 'they won't notice' or whatever, but there can be no argument that it is theft.
Um, right. And god forbid you have a good memory, and you memorize a poem. Or learn how to play a song on your guitar. Right? Or write down a passage you like out of a book... or....
So the big deal is all about protecting what is the legal property of someone. To base a society on the principle that it is okay to steal from others is socially destructive.
The big deal is that what is "legal" and what is "property" is determined by a legal system which is constructed and maintained by human beings, all of whom are fallible and corruptible, and to the extent that these weaknesses manifest themselves in the system, other human beings have every right (and perhaps even a responsibility) to comment.
Nobody's forcing anyone to use any particular scheme, right?
I think this misses the point. The point seems to be that (at least right now) there isn't any *reasonable* scheme that anyone has figured out how to use to copyright digital media. So there is no choice. And the industry has turned to the legal system and repressive arms of government to enforce what they cannot technologically achieve -- copy protection.
Personally, I am against all copyright law. If you can "protect" your intellectual property and really think its worth it, or necessary, by all means, go ahead. But you have no right telling me how to use my mind, and my resources as long as I am not hurting anybody else. Thats what a free, open society requires. This idea of people having an implicit "right to profit" off ideas is BS, and it would behoove people to recognize what the kind of environment that awaits those who embrace the ideology of intellectual property (micro$oft is a big beneficiary, par example). Oh, and I know this might sound hypocritical in a forum of people who make a living by thinking, but it's not. Intellectual property is more about the right to keep making money off old thoughts once the thinking stops, and my guess is most people here make their way by constantly working to solve problems, rather than coming up with an idea or a solution, patenting it, and living off the royalties.
How could great technology be held back from the wanting consumer and producers of today. I mean are you going to tell me that the average joe with a wonderful idea can't just make it happen? erm wait ... okay ... but still digital just means that crap will be sent in 1's and 0's and more of it can be sent over cable lines. I don't know why the FCC is having such a cow I mean DSS has been around for a while now and anyone craving the digital world can go grab a dish. As for cable companies because of them having control of set areas you have to take what you can get. I mean exactly 2 blocks from me my neighbors had Cable modems and 120 some channels for almost 2 years before they even thought about upgrading my neighborhood. And you know what was even better? We paid exactly the same price for service. Cable companies need to be deregulated. I think that the digital issue isn't really the biggest issue to worry about here.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Pardon me for seeming slightly off-topic, but bear w/ me for a moment:
/. regarding the issues w/ DVD and encryption I find the assertion that the industry at hand is paying too much attention to copy protection (ultimately what the DVD encryption scheme was) a bit ironic.
In light of the recent discussions here on
Haven't I read oh so many posts here about how the film industry didn't take enough time/effort to develop adaquate (read uncrackable) copy protection and so they therefore 'deserve' to have their algorithm cracked?
If that's the case, and this were my decision, I too would want to take care to make sure that my copy protection was adaquate, especially after reading the press that the DVD issue has received.
And the comment (#2) about the difference between digital/analog reproduction is a significant part of this discussion anyway.
Though all of the above rests on the assumption that one holds the opinion any copy protection at all is needed...
-FP
!#Support OpenSores Software#!
At some point or another even people who are in mp3 groups have take a trip to the record store and buy something to release. I personally spend about $200 a month on various music. Most of which I release to my friends and others who do not have the luxury of having a rather large disposable income. I know a few people such as me. Until the RIAA can get their heads out of their arses and admit they do not like not being in control of the distribution of music then to hell with them. Let them admit that there is a place for music to be distributed on the internet, even if it has to be them and not my neighbor. :) Saves me a trip to the record store.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
listen..
.wav
:)
:)
:)
:)
the thing with mp3 is the way circumstences conjonctured
to bring all the digital music exchange made possible today.
01. suddenly we got gigs of disk space. cheap.
02. you got asdl and cable modem transfers. (28.8k anyone?)
03. you got this kind of perfect format which permits near-cd quality
for a fraction (1/12) of the disk storage space.
only 1 or 2 years ago,
downloading a whole album of
would have been something around.. 600Mb.
that was a quite disturbing download
on a 33.6k and 800Mb harddrive.
and just think also of the newness
of all the free software to easily produce and listen them files
from any computer anywhere on (almost) any system..
no physical existence pour ainsi dire..
and perfect copies, as often mentioned yet..
so yes i would be afraid
if i was the organization administrating this money-making channel..
but i think that what will happen eventually..
is that artists will make a choice for themselves.
it's just like the difference when you're a programmer..
between working inside a company or freelancing.
if my business charges $350/day of work
and i only get 15 bucks an hour out of it..
the internet allows me to cut the intermédiaire..
so we can set a price that fits the client
and certainly fits me too.. (something like.. $30/hour..
my point is..
when small money transactions
will be made possible.
it will cost much less to produce mp3's
for the producers themselves too!
think about the material and shipping savings!
and if i can easily pay 2-3-4 bucks a CD
i will MOST gladly do so
if i know it comes from a channel
that is directly connect my cash
to the artist him/her/them/self/ves..!
so i think artists will make a choice for themselves, and pretty soon.
watch out for breakups betweem those usual mutually linked partners..
the creator and the distributor.
just like i am myself tempted to split apart
from the company i work for
and start freelancing!
fred from montreal.
MY FIRST SLASHDOT POST!
I'M TROLLING MYSELF! hahahaha
/// evilloop.com
...look at the copyright notices of most media and you'll find that it is illegal to copy/store whatever it is (book/CD/Cassette/DVD/etc. etc) to/in another medium.
This is outright theivery on the part of the copyright holders. Why should I have to pay to buy an album on CD AND on Cassette AND on Vinyl (or whatever other medium) to remain 'legal'. Surely I should be able to buy the RIGHT to listen/read to something just ONCE and then I can do with it what I will. If I want to copy a book (well, part of!) so I can read it on my Palm Pilot I should be able to and not feel guilty for breaking the law. If I've bought an album on CD I should be able to copy it to Cassette/MP3 legally also.
Until the laws are changed so that this is a possibility, then we will have these arguments for every 'new' format that threatens this monopoly, which is exactly what it is.
'The best thing about deadlines is the wonderful WHOOSHing sound they make as they go by.' - Douglas Adams
While piracy is an issue, I don't think this is the main thing that the RIAA is trying to fight. Personally, I pirate software because I don't have the money to buy it. If I couldn't get it for free I'd go without. Is this costing the software industry any money? No. Now with CDs it's slightly different. I can afford to buy some CDs but not a whole lot, so I'm very picky about what I buy. I use MP3s to get a chance to listen to new bands and actually form an opinion about them (instead of the song you hear once at a party and vaguely remember it being cool). In the 3 years I've been listening to MP3s I've bought around 50 CDs. Before then my CD collection consisted of 2 CDs. In Oct. I bought 10 CDs (at a cost of ~$250 cdn). 6 of those were CDs that I already had the full album in MP3. The other CDs were all from bands that I had heard MP3s of and gotten to like and wanted to support.
What most people don't realise is that the RIAA doesn't write music and it doesn't record music. All the RIAA members do is mass-produce, distribute, and market music. For this service they take a large portion of the proceeds from the album sales. In the old model this was necessary because otherwise you couldn't get your album out to many people. The bands/artists write the music and could produce the album by renting studio space (although record companies will usually cover this). The main barrier is then getting the album to the stores.
This is the reason why the RIAA fears MP3 (as a format) and is trying so hard to fight it. If the problem was just piracy then copy protection is the conventional solution for that problem, not destroying the format itself. With MP3 (and other digital music formats) the artists themselves can distribute using the internet (at very little cost) and not need the big record companies at all. That really starts to hurt the RIAA's profits. A copy-protected format would still allow this to happen, which is why the RIAA wants to crush digital formats entirely. Baring that, they want to be the ones with the control on the format. If they control the format then they can keep the costs (for others) so high that it wouldn't be feasible to independantly distribute albums.
I think that this is another reason why DAT (which has been mentioned a few times) was crushed. Not only can it copy CDs (flawlessly), but it also would allow for the cheap production of high quality masters. The RIAA put a stop on DAT in order to keep the cost of production high to keep indie bands down. This was still the early days of CD so a cassette release wasn't that bad at that time. Cheap DAT meant cheap production, and then cheap medium with tapes. By keeping the cost of DAT high it meant that bands would have to get a record contract to be able to gain access to professional recording equipment. I think now the threat is distribution.
Remember, pirating may take some money from the RIAA but indie distribution means that the RIAA doesn't get any money for those sales. The RIAA has always been about screwing the artists, they're still trying to do this but are using piracy as the excuse.
The Music and Film industry have been complaining they lose money because of analog recording devices for as long as I live (have grey hair...). Because of their powerfull lobby a lot of countries nowadays have taxes on blank (audio/video)cassettes to protect the copyright holders interest. The world being as it is a lot more countries do not and will never get it. So it's quite obvious to me from the industie's point of view new technologies should be used to prevent them from losing money. Of cause as a consumer I do not fully agree.
As far as DAT is concerned it has been and continues to be the professional standard in the music industry. DAT has always been a prominent part of the recording process. Almost every song on every record that gets released onto the market today spent part of it's life on a DAT tape as a master recording. There is literally no recording studio in the world that doesn't have at least one two-track DAT recorder.
2RockStars said that RIAA are middlemen and dinosaurs
Can we back up just a little to understand why these organizations had to exist?
Schizophrenic disclaimer: I'm a member of ASCAP opposed to blank-media fees, the latest copyright extension, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and institutionally-driven arbitrary protections.
A century ago music existed two ways: live and in scores. Musicians played and got paid, composers composed/performed and were published and got paid. Copyright, with its long common history, made it feasible to distribute printed copies of books and music. Early in this century, new forms of replication and distribution arose, especially photographs. Copyright was extended to those. Recorded music came later, as did software in myriad forms. No need to repeat the history.
But copyright protection was unhelpful -- almost meaningless -- without some way of acting on the protection afforded. How was a composer in Vermont to earn a few pennies from a performance in San Diego? How was a retired performer in Memphis to ear royalties on a jukebox play in Sault Ste Marie?
The answer was to form licensing agencies -- ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, SESAC, etc. -- to act as the artists' agent. This was a difficult court battle involving strikes and actions. It was not easily won, but it's hard to remember the days when a few dollars were all one earned ... even if a recording went on to sell a million copies. Even as recently as the 1970s, film composers had to strike for the right to the music they wrote. Ever see Dr. Zhivago? The music for this film was thrown out. Gone.
The intellectual property concept didn't come about for no reason. It was a construct devised to bridge the differences between tangible and intangible replication, to equate in some way the idea that 1,000 copies of a record weren't merely 1,000 pieces of plastic any more than 1,000 copies of Barbie were merely 1,000 pieces of plastic. The plastic isn't the issue; the human thought is.
The agencies were aggressive, and still are. Ugly, even. Some of you may recall ASCAP hitting up the Girl Scouts for royalties a few years ago, and getting laughed out of town. The licensing agencies are called "thugs" by restaurants who created an ambiance through background music, but refused to pay the fees. In fact, the retaurateurs finally got their legislation ... free background music in exchange for an extension of the copyright period.
It really went bad when the RIAA secured its tape tax in 1992. It was one of the first times government was collecting taxes and turning them over to a private corporation. The real thugs were unleashed. They slathered over the WTO and its U.S. progeny, the DMCA.
Many of us who depend on our agencies collecting royalties for us -- I make a pitiful $600 or so each year -- are ashamed by this behavior, and we've said so. I wrote to oppose the tape tax and the DMCA (my own Senator was a co-sponsor of both).
On the other hand, many compromises have been effected over the years on behalf of the listener (the 'consumer', these days). One of them is the survey. In case you've never heard of this process, it works like this: music airplays (and now netplays) are surveyed at random. Get found in a survey, and you get pro-rated royalties. I've had hundreds of airplays, but no survey ever found me. So every composition of mine has been given free to listeners. That's one of the bargains struck in order to make the licensing system work. With computers, it may no longer be necessary.
But the agencies -- my agency, ASCAP, among them -- are running scared, and they react irrationally. I was on ASCAP's first Internet committee five years ago, and even then, way before mp3 and at the very beginning of RealAudio, they saw a change coming. Their worry was not lining their pockets, but representing their composers effectively in a new world.
Likewise, the RIAA represents the performers, and in this world where commerce is now apparently king, those who sell more get more. Those who sell little get less than less -- for they pay the same tape tax that you do. The situation isn't equitable. Positions harden. Internet culture (information wants to be free) has not cohabited well with the results of a 75-year fight to identify and respect the creators of artistic 'information'. And a rising right-wing style of commercialism has further poisoned the atmosphere.
I host a broadcast and netcast with archived shows called Kalvos & Damian's New Music Bazaar. Our raison-d'être was to widen listenership for new concert and electroacoustic music. And yet in our success, we now face the tribulations of the DMCA, which does not grandfather archived material. Our two-person volunteer gig is now obtaining clearances for 4,400 individual compositions -- or else comply with the RIAA's astoundingly bizarre rules of allowing only 5-hour show rotations for 2 weeks without playlists.
The understood relationships, not the middlemen, are being killed off. Not merely taking material without payment, but taking it without credit (all the creative participants relegated to unpaid anonymity), has become widespread.
Any experienced web site creator understands the feeling of seeing layouts and graphics and text and even complete pages and sites pop up elsewhere. Imagine if you were a lifelong artist whose survival was being compromised through similar ignorance and disrespect. I believe we have lost the ability to understand each other, and the agencies and legislators have actively participated -- encouraged -- that misunderstanding.
Dennis
Yup. Agree 101.5% with everything posted. My own spin of course on this subject is that I (also) believe that piracy is wrong, and the RIAA being greedy or not wanting to share.. yada yada yada are just minor issues (not major issues). A major issue would be that the artists and of course distribution and promotion entities involved get paid in some way for people listening to music (a consumable product), where individual personal enjoyment is the product being sold -- how do they get paid if everyone pirates music via mp3s? They have no control and no way of getting paid. This is a serious problem. I'd be a little concerned if my employer had issues with paying me for my time at work. On the consumer side, we stand to loose some amount of our technological freedom. Some types of technology are going to be completely outlawed (minidisc without SCMS, DAT without SCMS) -- that is science, physics, engineering and safety issues aside -- we can never be allowed to own a minidisc player without SCMS whether we want one or not. This can be likened to perhaps doing away with photocopiers because they MIGHT be used to copy copyrighted material... Sounds ridiculous, but it has already happened with DAT, Minidisc now Liquid Audio (and probably the entire upcoming generation of portable audio players) and DVD. Why not start giving out speeding tickets with every sportscar purchased (just because it can go over the legal max speed limit, but the police can't be there all the time.), or better yet giving out tickets to any pedestrian on the street because they are a potential J-walker? This paranoia that just because I can copy for ever in MP3 format meaning I will obviously become a thief and never again pay for music is ridiculous. I could have been pirating every piece of music on analog media I ever listened to, and this really doesn't change with digital media. The concept of stealing music when I am pirating it from a friend has to be made seen as an evil taking away from the right of musicians and the music industry to earn a living and make a profit (they have a constitutional right to). And I have an moral and civil obligation to not steal (pirate). If everyone behaves, this system should work fine. If the industry tries to control and strangle free choice to follow civil and moral obligations... Hehe... I would like to see how long they can with-hold free choice from consumers. Fact is there will be more grass roots type MP3 technologies coming out because that is the only place where they can come from, and short of outlawing these technologies and free thought (and limiting what types of algorithms and programs programmers are allowed to write and release) they can't be stopped. Hardware manufacturer's can be legally threatened, but I will not allow myself to be bullied by the RIAA. How many of you reading this forum can really say you fully enjoy the control over your choice and freedom the RIAA has attempted to exercise by taking away DAT (or SCMSing it), minidisc, liquid audio and encrypting the shit out of DVD? I hate it, I feel like a fucking kid who is told I will never be old enough to be trusted with the content that CAN exist on these formats. I make the choice not to pirate myself, and not because it is made for me. The RIAA will NOT take away my rights to use MP3s, minidiscs without SCMS and DAT players. The fact they have is already a line they have NO RIGHT TO CROSS. Perhaps its time to take the RIAA to court on the idea that they are limiting technological advancement and free choice by assuming the consumer is not capable of making morally (and civilly) correct choices? This has to be constitionally illegal somehow. Just my 0.02 worth. Mike
Yup. Agree 101.5% with everything posted.
My own spin of course on this subject is that I (also) believe that piracy is wrong, and the RIAA being greedy or not wanting to share.. yada yada yada are just minor issues (not major issues).
A major issue would be that the artists and of course distribution and promotion entities involved get paid in some way for people listening to music (a consumable product), where individual personal enjoyment is the product being sold -- how do they get paid if everyone pirates music via mp3s? They have no control and no way of getting paid. This is a serious problem. I'd be a little concerned if my employer had issues with paying me for my time at work.
On the consumer side, we stand to loose some amount of our technological freedom. Some types of technology are going to be completely outlawed (minidisc without SCMS, DAT without SCMS) -- that is science, physics, engineering and safety issues aside -- we can never be allowed to own a minidisc player without SCMS whether we want one or not. This can be likened to perhaps doing away with photocopiers because they MIGHT be used to copy copyrighted material... Sounds ridiculous, but it has already happened with DAT, Minidisc now Liquid Audio (and probably the entire upcoming generation of portable audio players) and DVD.
Why not start giving out speeding tickets with every sportscar purchased (just because it can go over the legal max speed limit, but the police can't be there all the time.), or better yet giving out tickets to any pedestrian on the street because they are a potential J-walker?
This paranoia that just because I can copy for ever in MP3 format meaning I will obviously become a thief and never again pay for music is ridiculous. I could have been pirating every piece of music on analog media I ever listened to, and this really doesn't change with digital media.
The concept of stealing music when I am pirating it from a friend has to be made seen as an evil taking away from the right of musicians and the music industry to earn a living and make a profit (they have a constitutional right to). And I have an moral and civil obligation to not steal (pirate). If everyone behaves, this system should work fine. If the industry tries to control and strangle free choice to follow civil and moral obligations... Hehe... I would like to see how long they can with-hold free choice from consumers.
Fact is there will be more grass roots type MP3 technologies coming out because that is the only place where they can come from, and short of outlawing these technologies and free thought (and limiting what types of algorithms and programs programmers are allowed to write and release) they can't be stopped. Hardware manufacturer's can be legally threatened, but I will not allow myself to be bullied by the RIAA.
How many of you reading this forum can really say you fully enjoy the control over your choice and freedom the RIAA has attempted to exercise by taking away DAT (or SCMSing it), minidisc, liquid audio and encrypting the shit out of DVD? I hate it, I feel like a fucking kid who is told I will never be old enough to be trusted with the content that CAN exist on these formats.
I make the choice not to pirate myself, and not because it is made for me. The RIAA will NOT take away my rights to use MP3s, minidiscs without SCMS and DAT players. The fact they have is already a line they have NO RIGHT TO CROSS.
Perhaps its time to take the RIAA to court on the idea that they are limiting technological advancement and free choice by assuming the consumer is not capable of making morally (and civilly) correct choices? This has to be constitionally illegal somehow.
Just my 0.02 worth.
Mike
ps (hehe.. the other version of this, the one without any CR/LFs was a booboo..)
First off, it's Unauthorized Copying that may be a scapegoat or a threat. Copy Protection is a proposed solution to the alleged problem. Secondly, unauthorized copying is not a big problem in the US (nor in the EU as far as I know). Yes, it happens, but very little of it eats away into the producer's profits. Often copies are made by friends and distributed for free to people who probably wouldn't have made a purchase anyway. Often people contemplating making a purchase will use an unauthorized copy as a demo, and make the real purchase later. In both cases the producer makes just as much or as little money as they would have anyway.
Where Unauthorized Copying becomes a profit issue is in some of the non-EU European countries, Southeast Asia and China. In these countries there are organized groups of people who make massive amounts of copies for sale. In many areas these people have better distribution chains than the legitimate producers. When you couple it with the fact that they usually have better prices as well, and there is little enforcement of IP law in these countries, the legitimate producers can have trouble selling to these markets.
Even though I see a legitimate threat to the producers posed by such copying, I still consider it a primarily scapegoat issue. Many of the organizations involved (eg. RIAA, SPA, MPA) are trying to strengthen IP law in the US, often to the point where it steamrolls over First Ammendment rights and long standing convention (such as fair use and contract by mutual consent). Here they use unauthorized copying as a scapegoat, and produce bogus figures to try to justify unconcionable actions.
To touch on Copy Protection, it's just a technical solution (as opposed to a legal solution) to impede unauthorized copying. It has been shown time and time again to be an ineffective solution at best. At worst it has actually cut into the producers' sales, for example the video tapes with copy protection that impairs video quality when you're watching the original. Another good example is if the DeCSS lawsuit somehow gets a verdict in the DVD people's favor, it will directly harm DVD sales, since fewer people will have DVD players available to them.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Whether MP3 makes piracy easy or not, the RIAA is not justified in attacking it. I use it to make personal copies of my CDs, which is perfectly legal (although the RIAA would love to get rid of that right). They have ulterior motives in this case and I don't want to see them further degrade our rights. Copyright isn't a God-given right that they posess. It's granted to them by the government, but there are conditions attached. They're trying to get around these.
If they want to make their music harder to copy, that's their right. If it gets to the point that personal copies are too difficult to make, then I'll take that into consideration when I'm deciding whether or not to buy their product. Otherwise, they have no right to screw with my ability to make legitimate copies of CDs that I've already purchased. I purchased them with the understanding that I could make personal copies. Trying to take that ability away after I've already purchased the product is just a scam. Who the hell are they to try to take away my ability to exercise my right to copy music that I've purchased legitimately?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I just bought 2 cds in the last couple weeks that I would not have bought had I not been able to listen to the mp3s first. They were from rather obscure bands (here in the states anyway). I liked the songs I heard though, so I bought the cds. This wasn't the first time either. I don't have a large MP3 collection. I do have some that are illegal, but most are from CDs that I now own. As for the illegal ones, I have no intention of buying the whole cd when I only like one song. If the record companies were smart, they'd sell custom-made cds online and then I would actually buy these songs. Nevertheless, they didn't lose a sale since they were never going to get that sale in the first place. It certainly doesn't seem like the situation is much worse than it was with cassette tapes.
If the RIAA would quit trying to whip up a hysteria about piracy to convince the public that any and all copying is illegal, perhaps I'd be more inclined to consider their point of view. As it stands, I don't feel an ounce of sympathy for them. They are the true pirates. As long as they are going to try to deceive people, they deserve whatever they get.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You DO have lifetime rights to personal playback.
Then please explain the DeCSS suit which is based on the fact that it might fascillitate making that backup you speak of. (And the holdup of Audio DVD until they can make it nearly impossable for the home user again). Also explain the RIAA resisting the existance of consumer priced CD-R drives and the attempts to get CDROM drive manufacturers to prevent audio ripping (unsuccessful attempts obviously).
It would seem that RIAA and the movie industry are doing their best not to provide me with the rights I am supposedly paying for.
In this, it's important to realize that the lack of CDs does not mean that revenues from the sale of music will go down.
Given that mp3.com splits 50/50 with the artist and the record companies are more like 90/10 ( and that's before the various creative accounting methods and making the band pay for every last thing out of their 10%), the artists stand to make MORE money with mp3 releases than they do now. Consider if the music sells to the consumer, but the artists percentage is 5 times greater.
MP3s will not reduce the demand for live concerts. The demand will be there, and there will still be money to be made. There will also be people with front money who want a piece of the action. So some of the names might change, but concerts will be funded by people with money who want to make more money, just like it is now. Concert promoters aren't likely to quit and get a day job because of mp3.
In the US at least, personal use copies are explicitly permitted under fair use. That will change very soon due to new legislation.
Anyway, my point was that mainstream labels have a stranglehold on the mediums of promotion.
Currently, they have an almost absolute stranglehold. However, once they start to loose their grip, things change. mp3.com can't promote as well as a major label because radio stations can't risk offending the majors. If mp3 could get play on a radio station in a large market, things would start to change. Unfortunatly, that's easier said than done, but in time it can happen. For purposes of this arguement, MTV is a radio station with a HUGE market.
If you make a copy, that is theft - pure and simple
Uh, no, if I steal something, that is theft. If I copy something, that is copyright infringement, perhaps, unless it falls under fair-use or the other (vanishing under lobbying pressure) loopholes for individuals and personal use. If I copy something and then redistribute it, this is almost certainly unauthorized redistribution unless you have given me permission.
Further, all of the above are legal (although perhaps incorrect, IANAL and so on) terms; you appear to be dangerously close to conflating legality and morality. I don't always agree with the speed limit in a particular zone, but I generally follow it (unless I'm making a traffic hazard of myself by being the only person driving less than 20 miles an hour over it, but anyway..); similarly, I probably have pirated far less material even than you have, but I can still think that the current enforcement of copyright law (and perhaps the law itself) is dumb and has more to do with financial and political power than with morals or ethics.
Please keep your terms and realms of reasoning separate and clear; it makes it so much easier to have rational discussions instead of namecalling.
Thanks,
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Do you remember Digital Audio Tape? Shortly after CDs (the digital equivalent of a vinyl record) became popular, the Digital Audio Tape was introduced, with the hopes (by some) that it would becom the digital equivalent of the cassette tape. Unfortunately, the RIAA was as afraid of DAT then as they are of MP3 now. A DAT could potentially make a first generation pristine copy of a CD -- which would have ruined the market for CDs.
So the RIAA lobbied legislators and filed lawsuits ... and the end result was legislation was passed mandating that DAT decks that could write DATs had to have copy guard circuitry that would prevent copying CDs (or other commercial DATs). The requirement for the copy guard reduced demand, and without demand the manufacturers wouldn't lower prices. Today it's almost impossible to buy a DAT deck, which is exactly what RIAA wanted. And what happened to DAT technology? The manufacturers built it into computer tape drives for backing up hard drives, and camcorders.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Theres a fundamental problem with creating any new type of distribution media:
These three things are played out constantly in the marketplace. Right now, we're seeing a push by the publishers to prevent a massive move towards the more portable, and cheaper-to-produce MP3 format (the quality issue I'll leave for the audiophiles amongst us).
It's my opinion that traditional mediums such as CD have, reached the limit of quality that the market will bear. Since a significant portion of music-listeners can't hear the difference between CD quality and DAT quality for most applications, no one is going to successfully market a new format with 10 times better quality than CD. That leaves portability (MP3 has excellent portability) and cost (MP3 distribution can be very inexpensive compared to moving crates of CDs).
MP3 is thus the most competitive format to come along since the advent of CDs, IMO. I suspect that either MP3 or another digital format will exist alongside CD for quite a while. Consumers WANT to be able to copy things though, and that will definitely have an impact on which digital format will make it with buyers.
Of course, the really interesting stuff to watch won't be in audio at all, but in video...
~Acheron
11000010 10001001 10100011 10000011 10001000
This isn't an attempt by the FCC to block the advancement of technology.
It's an attempt by the media to kill the concept of fair use. Their goal isn't malicious; frankly I'd be less disgusted with them if it were. No, the motive is plain and simple: pure, unadulterated greed. And not even by the artists, mind you (the artists only ever see a comparatively tiny fraction of the mopney their work makes). It's by the execs.
The media, particularly the recording industry, would love nothing more than to make all media pay-per-view (or per-hear, or per-read, or whatever is appropriate to the given medium). It's far more lucrative than being sponsor-based. HBO can tell you that one; I've never seen any commercials on their various channels, except for things on other HBO-affiliated channels, and yet they make huge amounts of money. They're not strictly pay-per-view, I know, but the concept is similar.
Now, if this money went to the people who actually made the works, I wouldn't mind so much. Artists should be paid for their creations; they work hard to bring them to life. But very little of the money goes to the artists, actually. Or to the people who do the work to make the media on which the works are distributed. An artist may make a million dollars, but untold millions more go to execs who haven't done anything but give contractual deals which no one in their right mind in any other industry would ever take.
Nope; the media wants to kill fair use because it's not lucrative for them. This was never much of an issue before, because it was impossible to realize; how does one make a local file on a hard disk pay-per-view without the Net to connect to a server? But now, with today's advances, it is possible for them to do this. Witness DIVX as a proof-of-concept. Yeah, DIVX died, but that was only because no one supported it; if everyone had gone to DIVX rather than DVD, there would have been no choice. And the only reason no one went for DIVX was because unless everyone had gone for it, the public wouldn't have stood for it, and you can't count on everyone doing anything.
Frankly, this is a scary time as far as the media is concerned. As long as the people make it out with their rights intact, I'm OK with whatever happens. But the media industries don't want that, not necessarily out of any wish to destroy people's rights, but simply out of a lust for The Almighty Dollar.
Sick, isn't it?
Another reason they may worry is because MP3's are not recorded to a piece of media and that media distributed, they are of course downloadable where you can burn them to a CD or simply store them on your hard drive. With cassettes and CD's, you still have to purchase the media to put the copies on. Although this was relatively cheap, it was still an obstacle. Additionally, MP3's can be spread infinitely faster with software such as Napster. I was thinking awhile back, if everyone on the Internet would buy one CD and a different CD from everyone else and then share that CD on the Internet with something like Napster, everyones CD/MP3 collection would grow exponentially for about the low, low price of $15. Basically, no more need for the music companies. This has got to scare the fsck out of them. I was watching a show awhile back that prompted me to think that this is not such a bad idea in some ways. Chuck D from Public Enemy was on the show and said (paraphrasing) that it is the goal of the record companies to keep both sides as ignorant of the whole process as possible. Keep the customers and the artists in the dark as to the inner workings of the business so they can continue to make beaucoup $$. He seemed to think that this will all change with the advent of MP3's. The distribution channels will open up. Artists who currently have no way to be heard under the current system will now have their music broadcast literally around the world for all to hear. The music industry will definitely change due to the new technology. Whether the record companies will survive depends on their ability to adapt in a positive manner. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
on the off chance anyone actually reads this post:
The RIAA bugs the shit out of me (as does the MPAA). I understand that the labels and the artists have legal and voluntary contracts that give the recording companies the exclusive right to distribute their music, and that's fine. I do realize that when I download an MP3 from a CD I don't own and don't subsequently buy, I have hurt the label, and to a lesser extent, the artist. I do not know for sure, but I have heard that the artist's cut from a $15 CD is about 25 cents, and certainly under $1. Soooooo, if an album sells a million copies, assuming even the $1 figure, the artist receives $1,000,000 (only $400,000 if it's a quarter). BUT, a combination of hearsay and gut feeling says the LABEL gets, ohhhh, $5,000,000? My issue with the actions of the RIAA is that they're acting the typical corporate hypocrite. They *claim* that they're "looking out for the artists", or that it's somehow about the "artist's rights", blah blah blah. Assuming the figures I've used are not total fabrications, the label is getting anywhere from 5 to 20(!) times as much money as the artist is, so it's pretty obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of arithmetic just WHOSE interests the RIAA is looking out for, eh? Something I considered doing is, when I have the chance, acquire a CDR copy of a CD I want, then send the artist a check for $5. That way, I end up paying maybe $2 to the friend who made me the copy (or myself I had a recorder), and $5 to the artist, netting myself basically a 50% discount off the retail price. Everyone's better off but the damned hypocritical labels. This is a moral stand against the labels' behavior of which I do not really approve. HOWEVER, I have not done this, and the reason is simple. On the back of my Libertarian Party membership card, it says this:
"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others do live in whatever manner they choose."
I really believe in that principle. And I know that when I deny the labels their cut, which they have arranged by legal and voluntary contract, I am "forcibly interfering" with their rights. So I have not embarked on my CDR-getting & check-mailing endeavor. I do still occasionally download MP3s and not buy the source album (usually for soundtrack songs and one-hit-wonders), or make a handful of MP3s from a friend's CD that's not good enough to earn my dollars. But on the bright side, and what the RIAA *totally* ignores, is that often I get an MP3 and it spurs me to buy a CD, or even several. Not too long ago, I got a couple of Type O Negative MP3s, "Haunted", and "Cinnamon Girl". Now I have 4 Type O CDs. If it weren't for what the RIAA blankets as "piracy", I doubt I ever would have discovered this wonderful music. If I'd never got to download Corrosion of Conformity's "Albatross", I never would have purchased "Deliverance". A whole bunch of Rammstein files I got a while back prompted me to buy both of their albums. Same story for Stabbing Westward. But there's a rub here, too. All 4 of those Type O CDs were purchased USED. So what? The thing is, when a CD is purchased by a distributor and subsequently sold to a retailer (or some other outlet), then and only then is a cut given to the label (and the artist). The Joe Q. Public who originally bought the copy of "October Rust" I have now did in fact help to line the pockets of Roadrunner Records, BUT I DID NOT (at least not directly). I have a feeling that the RIAA knows this, and secretly hates used record stores for that reason. But there's no way they could pass off a ban on used sales on any sane person. That's why, as an earlier very eloquent post noted, that all media distribution industries lust for self-destructing or limited-use media. Witness DIVX. It was great for the industry. It was like pay-per-view with media. But it sucked for the consumer, and we knew it, and we voted with our dollars. I don't know where I'm going with this, so I'll change the subject again.
The other thing I don't like about the RIAA's attempts to run MP3 out of town on a rail is they completely deny any legitimate use of the format. I'll tell you what, if there were no Internet, I would still dig MP3. Why? I'm no audiophile. I honestly can't tell the difference between a decent 128K/44KHz MP3 and a CD (or even between VHS and DVD most of the time). So rather than buying a 100 disc CD changer or whatever, it's perfectly convenient for me to make MP3s of the songs I really like and keep them on my computer(s). In my main music directory, I have 538 songs using about 2.8GB of space. I would guess that less than 100 of those songs are "illegitimate". Most of them are just copies of songs that I legitimately own and simply wish to have available in a different format. I don't want a Rio (or whatever) to play "Internet music", I want it because it's small, doesn't skip, and lets me mix'n'match my songs. But the RIAA doesn't dig that. In their minds (or at least their press releases), MP3=piracy. But their wrong, and that's why SDMI will fail (oh please oh please oh please). I, as a consumer, benefit not at all from SDMI over plain MP3. Nor, I would imagine, do any of the rest of us. And the wonderful thing is that since there is plenty of open-source software for the creation and playback of MP3 files, that no one, not the RIAA, not the US gov't, NO ONE CAN EVER TAKE IT AWAY. But the RIAA either doesn't see it, or just won't admit it, and that's their total logical disconnect.
MoNsTeR
(obligatory links: www.lp.org www.self-gov.org)
It's not about people "trying to protect what is theirs" -- for the most part, the artists aren't calling for copy protection -- it's about the parasitic middlemen of the RIAA fighting for their piece of the pie in a world where their kind are becoming unnecessary. What gives *them* their attitude of entitlement to creative works that they didn't create? That's what *I* want to know.
You're making illegal copies of music and distributing it
No. Copying is not illegal. It falls under fair copying. For backup purposes. You've already bought the music. Technically, if you want, you can make a half-billion copies of the music, once you've bought it.
Distributing it is what's illegal. Transferring a copy of a work to another person who hasn't paid for it is against the law. It's theft.
You claim to have not bought music because it was available on the net or from friends. This doesn't mean that everyone else exists on the same level of moral turpitude. Personally, I own several MP3 compilation CD's. ALL of the music on them comes from my CD collection, or was bought, legally, from an online distributor.
Simply because one person might (or is proven to) be doing something isn't a reason to remove the rights of those who follow the rules/laws.
Merely tacking more laws into the books does not help the problem. Nor do exotic encoding/protection schemes. They were created, they can be cracked *COUGHDeCSSCOUGH*.
You're removing choice from people who abide by the laws, and you're not affecting the actual thieves at all. Just one more rule they ignore. Just a little extra effort to break another copy protection scheme.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The situation is not nearly as simple as you make out. There is a concept in copyright law of "fair use", under which you can make copies for most purposes that do not interfere with the author's ability to profit from his work - so backing up computer software, copying CDs onto tape, or copying documents to scribble on them is fine is long as you only use the copies yourself. I believe this point has been tried with regard to both software and music in US and UK courts - for instance Diamond won against the RIAA when they claimed the Rio had no legal use.
As for what your employer was doing - either they're just playing it safe or its more to do with your contractual obligations to your suppliers (non-disclosure, or whatever) than copyright.
and I think DVD's have already adopted it.
DVD's are priced very reasonably, very little
more than video tapes cost before the advent of
DVD's. In fact, very little more than CD's.
It is the price of CD's that is driving the
"theft" of music and is helping push MP3 as an
alternative. They are cutting their own throats
by charging so much. If the price of CD's were
cut in half, CD's would sell like candy and the
studios would still make just as much profit.
And this would cut the legs out from under the
"theft" of music. MP3 would still advance but
not as quickly.
I don't think DVD's will have this problem that
music has, because the price is more reasonable,
for what you get.
You DO have lifetime rights to personal playback. Once you purchase a CD, you are entirely within your rights to purchase a CDR, make a copy of that CD, and play the CDR instead of the CD. That way, if the CDR were to be damaged, you could simply make a new CDR from your master CD. Or you could make a CDR and put it in your closet, and play the original CD. Then, if the original CD were to be damaged, you would have your CDR backup.
The record industry is under no obligation to replace damaged media, or to offer a discount on multiple purchases of the same software, but that doesn't affect your rights to make backup copies of software you have legally purchased.
With very few exceptions, most bands make the bulk of their money on the sale of concert tickets. Very few bands ever make any money on record sales. Their cut is too small.
... they basically get out there and ROCK, as you put it.
A dumb band will spend tons of money recording their album, then sit on their asses and expect their label to promote the hell out of them and make them rich.
A smart band will do everything they can to get people interested in attending their concerts. They will allow audience taping, put out free MP3s, tour their asses off
Besides, getting hit on the head by the pot of gold is pretty much a matter of chance. How many talented latin bands with good songs just faded out of the picture while the Macerana was played to death on the radio?
The question you posed pretty much answers itself: the RIAA et. al. certainly isn't just trying to hold back technology. Why would they? They made a fortune off the LP and the CD.
While I feel that outlawing (or even trying to outlaw) mp3's is illegal and unethical, the record companies especially have a lot to fear from them. If digital distribution of music becomes easy, then their whole business model falls apart.
One thing I think should be understood: record companies for the most part don't really sell music, they sell marketing. It's a value-added business. Nobody really buys Britney Spears CD's because she's so talented; it's the whole marketing image that people buy.
And you can fool people into thinking that a second generation cassette tape isn't good enough; that they need to have the original. With digital copying, this pretty much flies out the window. If portable MP3 players catch on, this really will mean a huge drop in business for the record companies. Especially since their marketing has more and more focused on younger crowds.
The question as posed is the wrong question: they're not "scapegoating" anybody. Rather, the powers that be see a real danger to their bottom line, and are willing to play very very dirty to stop it. The question isn't whether they're facing a real danger: of course they are. The question is whether their actions are legal and ethical.
One comment about copyright: it was originally created for authors, not for those who owned printing presses. Read any history of Shakespeare, for example, and you'll hear a lot about unscrupulous printers who print and sell an author's works without due compensation. For the people that already had printing presses (granted, an expensive proposition) life before copyright was 100% profit except for costs of materials and distribution, because you didn't have to pay the content creator (if you could get away without doing so). Copyright protected content creators by providing them with a legal tool to protect their creations. This wasn't as good financially for the printers, but on the other hand it encouraged content creation because authors knew they were less likely to be ripped off. Over time this made publishing a much bigger industry than it otherwise might have been.
I agree with most of the points that you made - we have arrived in an era where everyone has an electronic printing press, but yet we still need to preserve the legal balance between content producers and content distributors that encourages content creation. This is going to be new and interesting because now everyone can be a content distributor.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
However, I don't think your summary of the complaint with copy protection is quite valid, or at least it doesn't entirely line up with my view. As I see it, copy protection in some places is not a bad thing. I can understand why a company would want to protect their media from piracy, as that obviously hurts their business tremendously, and when working with any easily-reproducable media, piracy of your product is simple.
My complaint is not that copy protection used, but rather, how it is used. For instance, mp3's are a perfectly valid medium, yet the format itself has been attacked by the RIAA and others. They should be targetting piracy, not a medium which allows piracy. This type of practice is quite similar to attacking the VHS tape merely because it can recod.
Then of course, there's the DVD CCA battle, which is a great example of misuse of copy protection. It would be one thing if they were attacking pirates who had cracked the encryption and were distributing hacked videos, but as I understand it, they're going after people who broke the encryption for a legitimate reason: to get DVD's to work. Why are they justified to stop people from making DVD's easier to watch? Their copy protection oughtn't be there to stop people from using DVD's, it ought to be there to stop people from mis-using it. There's a big dfference, it seems to me, and it will really frighten me if things go their way.
Regardless of this, ultimately I think the many current attempts to create strong copy protection are pretty silly. Perhaps it's there merely because it can be... it's certainly easier to encrypt a DVD than it is to copy protect a VHS tape. But really, what are they protecting? I can still copy all these things just as well as I ever could, but it's a big hassle for me to make my DVD drive do what it's supposed to do in Linux. Seems kind of silly to me, even if I can understand why the companies might be concerned.
Remember those old games that made you look up what the third word on page 47 of the manual was? Didn't seem to stop piracy, which is much of the reason it was removed. Pretty silly, only ended up getting in the way of legitimate users, because the pirates could just be told what the word is. But then again, Q3's copy protection is working pretty darn well, as long as you want to play an internet game, so it just depends on the context. I'd just like to see copy protection used correctly...
(Not that I can imagine anyone wanting to pirate American television. It's not exactly the pinnacle of civilization.)
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Depends on what you're into.
Some people are *really* into the "collectible" aspect of CDs -- the jacket and liner notes for some are as valuable as the audio. This is personally not my thing, but somne of my friends think like this.
A pirated CD certainly is worth nothing to a collector.
My journal has hot
Ok, let's face it, they should feel threatened, becuase new technologies will allow piracy on a much larger scale then ever before.
Copy protection systems are incredibly annoying (probably unacceptably so) because they stop the user from making legitimate copies. And in the case of DVD/DeCSS it was wrong that you could only use the media on certain 'supported' platforms.
But to be honest, I (perhaps naively) think that if the media content industries really believed that people would only make legitimate copies, they might consider scrapping the whole copy protection issue. But let's face it, no matter what you or I might do, we have to admit that a large majority of users do use and distribue illegal MP3s - how many people really delete an MP3 they 'don't like' and go and buy a copy of the ones they do? It's an insignificant number, and theft is occuring. It's the natural tendancy of humans - if breaking the law becomes that easy, they play it down as a minor thing, and that it doesn't really matter. Downloading an MP3 doesn't hold the same gravitas as walking into a record store and physically stealing a CD.
If people didn't use the new technologies to steal there wouldn't be a problem. Making your own personal copy, or even small scale theft like making a copy for a friend, are fine. But large scale internet distribuion is a much bigger problem. And if society can't be trusted to 'behave' within the law, then obviously tactics such as copy protection will be tried.
It doesn't matter what your viewpoint on whether you think you should have to pay for music/film etc. is. Artists should have the right to sign up to a record company and sell their material to the public. If society then believes that material from other (possibly free) sources is as good, they will download such material, and record companies and their associated artists will die out as the artists who offer their material through other mediums prosper (presuming they can make a living from it). Market (or market-less) forces at work.
But in reality, we know that the record companies and their artists will go out of business becuase the new technologies for copying and distribution will mean that noone will buy their products because it's easier to steal them. This may or may not be a good thing (loosing large record companies and artists). Indeed, you could argue that once the majority of society believes that theft of this sort is acceptable, then the laws of society will be changed to legalise it. This too may or may not be a good thing.
Analogue recording and duplication always results a loss of quality.
Their excuse for holding such things back is that suddenly you can make infinite perfect copies of the material.
(Of course, MP3 is far from perfect itself. Then again, the RIAA doesn't care, doesn't it?)
Remember how they tried to hold back DAT?
- Ed.
take a hard look at what it is they sell. Does the RIAA promote the sale of plastic discs in colourful cases, or do they sell music?
Lets see....I'm guessing...the plastic discs in the colorful cases? Imagine if you had a company that had huge amounts of capital invested in the production of a physical thing, money invested in the transportation of that thing, money invested in the Point Of Sale outlets, you had a stranglehold over the primary producers who needed your vast infrastructure to distribute. Then, some punks come along and make all of that non-necessary. The mode of production has changed and no longer needs your business. You can no longer milk the primary producers as effectively.
I'm betting that you'd try and stop it happening. I'm also betting that one of the companies is going to either invest quickly in the new technology and betray the others or that some upstart firm is going to make a killing here.
You are making a bad assumption here. If I could say to myself, "My garage band, Colonel Hacker and the Script Kiddies, rocks so hard. We're going to release a CD of our music and a DVD of our killer performace at my cousin's bar mitzvah. Since we believe in the GPL and free information, we're going to allow free distribution of our CD and not encrypt our DVD.", then go ahead and get a copy of that CD and that DVD into a million people's hands, I would agree with you.
It is a great idea. But in reality and any time in the near future, it's not going to happen. Anyone with a little bit of money can record music or film a movie, but there are only about a dozen corporations on this planet that can take that album or movie and make it available to the mass market. Those corporations may fight with each other for market share, but when it's in their common interest, they are more than willing to work together. The one thing they all agree on is that no new players are going to get into the distribution game.
It would be wonderful if consumers could really vote with their feet and with their wallets. But as long as a vast majority of CDs and movies are purchased at stores like WalMart and Best Buy, no large number of people are going to get ahold of anything those dozen companies don't want them to.
Bottom line: Until the internet replaces brick and mortar stores as the primary means of content distribution, the system we have now will stay in place. I have no doubt that one day it will happen, but I don't see it happened any time soon.
-Barry
I'd agree with the fact that the industry probably "lost" more due to analog copying, and may still for a time, but I would think that MP3 is rapidly catching up.
I also think that their efforts are pretty futile at this point. They let it go on *far* too long without kicking up the royal fuss that they have now.
But one could apply (and here I expect some angry replies) the same arguments of "Just because it can be 'stolen' doesn't give you that right"...
My 0.02 cents anyway.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Actually, I know mp3.com is legal. And that they don't provide pirate mp3's. I was talking more about how *visible* it was to the world in general, and how it doesn't take much extrapolation from there.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
I LOVE vinyl. It adds an incredible amount of warmth to the music. I also like a little bit of pops and cracks from time to time, especially at the beginning of a song. It has so much ambeiance. The problem is that i can't take a turntable with me walking on in the car, but i can take a burned CD or an MP3.
Of course, there is the fact that CDs only have ~75% of the dynamic range of vinyl. Because they are only 16bit, CDs only have 96dB of dynamic range (the difference between the quietest sound and the loudest sound). Vinyl has a dynamic range of >120dB. That is why is is kind of annoying to listen to symphonic works on CD, you can't hear the quiet parts as well as you can on a record.
A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Excellent. I couldn't have said it better myself (and have tried). This is nearly word for word my feelings on this subject. Our media has been controlled so long, that now it is basically force fed down our throats (Spicy Martin 'n Sync with Mambo #5). Finally a distrubution method develops that lets us do our own cooking, and the folks with what has now turned into an infinite supply of food are trying to make it seem like it isn't, and we could run out any second. And seem to hold the opinion that no one else could ever grow new food.
The tough part is that these companies will spend their VAST resources trying to hold their ground. We've all seen how they'll do it too, in the courts with lawyers. There is a huge consumer vs. corporate battle brewing, it's time to choose sides, and make your opinions known (at least for me).
+&x
It's only called piracy because our current laws are not up to speed with the reality of the situation (~no copying or distrubution costs for either the producer or the consumer). And still it is only piracy if you make copes and SELL them. I don't call it piracy, I call it listening to music.
+&x
I think these guys see that coming and want to prevent it by proposing a medium (DVD) that you can't make your own recordings unless you pay some outrageous fee to get a license key. It is a way to prevent the little guys from getting into the business.
It really comes down to the big players trying to maintain their hold on the market going into the digital age.
This is (very slightly) off-topic, but it seems like a good point in the thread to bring it up:
After playing with Napster, I've been wondering about the correctness of certain types of MP3 snarfing:
In particular, whether there should be anything at all wrong with grabbing a copy of an MP3 from a CD I already own. It seems to me that this is (or should be) entirely legitimate, as it simply saves me the trouble of having to rip the CD myself in order to get the MP3. I don't think even the RIAA claims that making an MP3 from a purchased CD is wrong, (presumably because it falls in to the "archival backup" category?)
The problem becomes a bit murkier in the case of grabbing an MP3 of a song I already own on tape or vinyl - is this legitimate? I don't own the CD, but I could (if I wanted to expend the effort) pipe the analog signal from the turntable of tape deck into the PC, then digitize and massage into MP3. Does the difference between analog and digital make me a criminal in this case?
I think it goes without saying that grabbing something I do not own in any form crosses the line (you may disagree with the copyright laws, but that does not change the fact that they are there and that the act clearly violates them.) Nonetheless, I have myself crossed that line for recordings that are no longer available (a lot of older music is essentially unavailable), and this seems defensible as well - I'd buy it if I could, but I can't.
Somehow, I think the people doing the downloads from my napster collection aren't being so particular.
Some of these areas seem legitimately gray and murky, even if you accept the validity of existing copyright law right up front...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
- RIAA (or whoever) are greedy bastards
:+) - they are stupid for even trying to copy protect
- we've been able to do it for years with analogue - what's the big deal
- I have a 'right' to evaluate music even if I don't own it
Now don't get me wrong, I would love to pay nothing for my music and video/DVD etc. And I don't claim to be an angel when it comes to never ever pirating *ahem* backing up stuff, but let's get a reality check!I can't argue with that one
It's aways been a moot point (even for software) - the cost of copy protection tends to be passed on to the legitimate users, and seldom really slows down professional pirates
There is a fine line between legitimate duplication (I copy my audio onto tapes for my walkman - that is to preserve my orginals in good condition, whereas if I carried them around when I went hillwalking, they would need replacing once a year or so (as the tapes do)) and pirating for sale - and it is based on what you intend to do with the copy, not on the copy itself. copying is not good or evil - but it can be used for good or bad reasons.
Yep, you do - but not by taking an illegal copy. you can hear it on the radio, in nighclubs, or if it is fringe music, it may be in the copyright owner's best interest to give a "sample" of the song some webspace. you DON'T have any rights to own a copy of someone else's work unless you have paid them for it.
Indeed - for DVD you have the wrong end of the stick entirely!
- Blank DVDs cost more than pre-recorded ones - why copy?
- CSS doesn't stop you copying DVDs, it stops you playing them
- CSS enforces licencing fees for DVD players - preventing OSS players when the owners of the DVD drives HAVE ALREADY PAID for the unusable windows player software
- CSS enforces regioning - restriction of trade by making a DVD on sale in one country unplayable by the DVD players in another country
In general, copy protection has cost more time and effort to impliment than it saves in legitimate sales regained - the best sanctions against copyright theft are legal, not technical, and only the threat of loss, not only of their profits but of their expensive copying equipment and their personal freedom, will disuade professional pirates.--
-=DaveHowe=-
> The first rule in mass-market money making is the guy with the best distribution channels wins.
That's just it, though! That's not why copy protection is stupid, that's why they're doing it.
If your distribution channel is free MP3s over the 'net, you may get listeners, but you don't get paid.
If your distribution channel is free copies of Netscape over the 'net, the same applies. If it's IE4 bundled with Win98, you do get paid.
If your distribution channel is copy-protected locked-up proprietary crap, you don't get listeners, but you DO get paid. And you get a full record of their listening habits, which you can resell by working in cahoots with snail-mail spammers like the DMA. If it's DIVX-style pay-per-listen, it's even easier, because you know when they're home and what they're listening to - for $0.50, I'll tell your telemarketers when your targets come home and you can call them 30 seconds after they turn the stereo on.
The war between MP3 and crappy-proprietary-copyprotected-shite is all about who controls the product. Technology has enabled us to give bit-for-bit perfect copies of music to our friends for free, rather than trading analog tapes, a freedom we've never had before. But it's also given the record companies the power (through, for instance, steganographically-added watermarks) to track everything you listen, and everyone with whom you share it - total control far exceeding what they've ever had before.
The only issue left is how to balance the abuse of our technologically-enabled freedom (MP3 piracy) against the abuse of technologically-enabled control (vendor lock-in, DIVX-style pay-per-play trackable music).
On that issue, I'm firmly and proudly on the side of the pirates. Why? Any abuse-by-piracy of MP3s and DVDs is an accident; MP3 and DeCSS were never developed with the intention of pirating music or video, whereas the abuse-by-control of the RIAA, CCA, the DIVX consortium, and the rest of the gang of intellectual-property pointy-hairs is always designed into their products with malice aforethought.
Make no mistake about malice aforethought. While copy-friendly (i.e. marketer-hostile) file formats are not a threat to present methods of distribution of music or video, they're a serious threat to the kind of Brave New World the entertainment industry wants to bring about in the future.
As you say - the guy with the best distribution channel wins. But RIAA is no longer content to control the music channel to your record store - there's more money in having control all the way from the recording studio to your eardrums, the technology to do so is now feasible, and that is why they see MP3 as a deadly threat.
So it seems to me that starving artists would be all for some sort of (and I hesitate to use the term even) Divx like system where it was free (and encouraged) to give away copies of a song (or software in general). Each song could then be played free during some trial phase, after which you would be required to pay for it.
Divx tried this and was burned completely. I'm not really sure why. I think it was just a PR bungle, really. We are all happy renting movies (I personally don't own a single one), so I don't see why people got such a bug up their asses about Divx, but I digress.
The goals are as follows: we want to separate distribution and payment. Furthermore, different payment schedules are needed. For example, for a peice of software you'll use alot, you'd rather pay once, and have unlimited use. For an album of songs from an uneven artist, you'd rather pay-to-play. Maybe you could have an evaluation period.
By separating distribution and payment, we can get the middle men out of the picture. Sony, Geffen, and whonot are not really in the business of distributing cds; they only have to do that to enable their real business: to sell music.
Unfortunately, CDs have huge capital investments that need to be made (not so much in production, but sales and distribution), so they can only bet on sure things (to the detriment of smaller artists everywhere). This is of course where digital music comes in. A secure storage scheme would leverage the power of bits (to invoke negroponte). The internet has made distribution free. Give copies to your friends. Payment is what these companies should focus on. The same payment infrastructure would work for all acts, so once again, the marginal cost of signing up an act is miniscule.
So in summarium: a secure music format would benefit everyone, as the big companies would be free to take care of payments (and the necessary multiply redunant 100% uptime systems necessary to keep things humming). Distribution would be up to marketing companies or word of mouth. The barrier to entry would be so low that everyone could play.
Of course, the format would have to be uncrackable for the companies to bet the farm like this, so it would likely require encrypted-signal-to-output-device. A bit of infrastructure investment, then. Of course, your output device would have to be net enabled as well. But I believe it is inevitable.
Johan
Re:2..
Except that you could still copy the cd to tape..
How would cd's stop this?
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
(I realize the above is satire, but anyway:)
Um, except that making a copy for backup use is fair and legal.
Ever heard of "fair use"?
The problem is that ease of copying for "fair use" also allows ease of copying for "unfair use" or "pirating".
Either we must allow pirating to be possible, or get rid of the policy of "fair use".
Media companies are of course trying to do the second.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
The reason the RIAA is miffed is because MP3s "can be digitally copied and distributed" ... cassette tape copies degrade generation after generation, and VCRs are not digitally perfect ... it doesn't matter if you use s-video, component connections, or gold-plated whachamacallits.
MP3s are bit for bit perfect, from the first encoding, to the millionth copy.
-- "I never did like to do anything simple when I could do it ass-backwards." -McCoy Pauley, the Dixie Flatline
That's total baloney. They said that about photocopiers and audiotape and videotape and of course piracy was supposed to cripple the software industry.
It hasn't worked out that way for any industry yet. Rather, the easier it was to make copies the more money the content producers made because their production costs just kept dropping even though their prices remained relatively constant.
I mean, software is easy as hell to copy and yet look at how many software guys are billionaires (to say nothing of the unwashed hordes of us who are mere millionaires).
There's no reason whatsoever to believe that things will be any different this time.
To understand why this is the case you have to understand that the driving factor in media penetration is not how easy it is to duplicate but how easy it is to get in the first place.
The first rule in mass-market money making is the guy with the best distribution channels wins. In the past this meant that if you could get your stuff in the most newspapers or stores you sold more of it than anyone else. The Internet is just another distribution channel. It's cheaper and more accessible than most but the same rules still apply.
Microsoft proved without a doubt that traditional distribution channels beat Internet distribution channels in the long term. It was easier to get your browser software preloaded than to download it. So Netscape, the first business to really leverage the Internet as a distribution channel, lost. They would have won if they had locked up the vendor distribution channel before Microsoft got their act together.
So long as the media companies have the power to make content more accessible than anyone else they will win. The Internet doesn't change that; they'll still have the money for faster connections and better advertising.
As for copy control, we have been developing a legal framework for that for centuries and it works long-term. If the other guy is stealing your stuff you sue them.
jim frost
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
What haven't they been fearful of? They were afraid of the VCR, and now they make a lot more money (I recall a figure of 50% more) off of tapes and the rental industry than they do at the box office. They never have, nor never will "get" technology.
Making the point about Analog/Digital only aids these nitwits. Most non US first world countries have taxes on audio cassettes to remedy piracy and perceived incurred losses. Those are *analog* tapes. The media mogul types WILL TRY TO SCREW YOU EVERY WHICH WAY.
Pointing towards the Grateful Dead and other bands whose careers were enhanced by tape trading does not faze them. They think only of the present, and of perceived losses.
They have not yet been able to stay ahead of technology. 5 years from now we will all have DVD burners, but of course a new HDVD spec will probably be out by then. Given the pace of technology, they ought to be more concerned about getting stuff out the door than delaying it will half assed (given the global crypto situation) copy protecting it.
Personally, I am hoping for the giants like AOl / Time Warner to collapse. I am hoping that tv on demand will develop such that you can pay minipayments (my new term, you heard it hear first, as micropayents are cents and millicents, I'm talking 50-100 cents) to watch your shows from the studios and get rid of the established channels.
whew, i need to lay off the caffeine, : - )
matt
I have many a friend into mp3, and I really don't think any payed for them ^_^ These people are all adolescents, and would normally be out pumping money into the Label's coffers, but instead I can log onto their ftp servers, and find hundreds of songs they just got off Napster. And it's not all 133t d00dz boasting about how many thousand they have. Mp3's are replacing CD's entirely for them. If they ever needed a CD, they'd burn it. These people are 'growing up' with the concept of free, readily availible music.
I'm not boosting the RIAA or anything (CD's are far too expensive for my liking), but what mp3 stands for really is a clear and present threat for the labels, and they damn well take it seriously. Are any of my friends gonna have 'second thoughts' and go out and buy a CD because The Smashing Pumpkins are losing money? No. Are they gonna go back to paying a lot of money for one or two songs they like (Canada doesn't have a real singles market). They ain't goin back
-- "Is this death or is this Ohio?"
I read posts about "yeah, greedy fuckers, trying to stop growing technology". Take a step out of the computer world. You're making illegal copies of music and distributing it. What in the hell do you expect people to do? What would you do if you're all of the sudden losing money because of really low record sales because of the distribution of your music on the internet? And don't give me any "yeah, but people still buy stuff all the time" bullshit. I know plenty of albums I didn't buy because of their availability on the internet.
That's pretty funny, the sad thing is I use road runner as my ISP and I'm afraid of what aol is going to do to me. I refuse to bend over for those guys.
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
Piracy is going to be the downfall of the internet. When media companies see people illegaly copying their products they will pressure Congress and the parliaments of other countries to have more control over data. Eventually routers will have to be approved by various governments and have ai routines to identify what will probably be watermarked data. It will have to decompress and analyze to determine it had modified to mask the watermark.
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
These are differences, but are they really that important? I don't buy the analog v. digital argument; anyone who could stand to watch a firsthand VHS copy of a movie would surely settle for an analog copy of a DVD. The quality would be just as good. Even a DVD->analog->DVD copy still probably produces better picture quality than the average TV set is capable of reproducing. Furthermore, the number of people who spend their lives watching the same movies over and over again can't be that large. I think that, by and large, people will still just rent a DVD movie when they want to watch it, and maybe if it is convenient make copies of a few of them, but not enough to actually damage the industry.
I think that the real reason that the industry doesn't like the idea of copying is that it helps keep prices in check. When VHS movies first started to appear for sale in the late 70s or early 80s, I seem to recall that they cost $40 or even $60 or more per copy. I also seem to recall that private copying of rented tapes was much more common back then. Now that the average price is $19.99, it's more convenient to just buy the movies you like, unless you are one of the few who has a major movie fetish and has to own lots and lots of tapes/discs. But I can't see this class of people having that much of an impact on the industry as a whole.
Ok, the scapegoat argument I have to agree with, however, I think the REAL reason that MP3 et. al. are being attacked by the industry with various "cpoyright protection" measures (read: profit protection) is that, for the first time, the industry has a window into how rife the piracy is. I mean, think about it, if you want to take the methodology of the industry into account and attempt to assess lost revenues as a result of piracy, I think the estimate based on copied analog tapes or copied CD's would put the figure associated with MP3 to shame. Fact is, if the industry doesn't see it, it isn't happening as far as they are concerned, but, since it is in their face by way of listings of MP3s being part of public domain, of course they are going to do something about it, or attempt to. This is not to say that I agree, I just think that the argument needs to be put into perspective. Nobody is singling out digital music per se, nor are they preying on the community of people that enjoy such music (an ever-expanding community, I might add) it is simply that they are trying to act on the only source of piracy that they have an ability to assess and possibly, control - I say good luck to them - they can try to slow us down but we're a pretty resillient bunch....
"I'm disrespectful to dirt! Can you see I am serious?"
To clarify, of course I (and many others) have bought CD's after hearing mp3s, but this argument really doesn't hold up to a lot of scrutiny.
yes, but after you acquire the cd, the mp3 is quite legal. record companies make money from it, they just don;t know it. i have a slow connection, so i buy cd's when i hear an mp3 i like. if i had a faster connection, i would get mp3s, and rip them on music cds as wavs.
i have done that, but they were bootleg tracks and illegal anyways >:]
'Mullethead. A hairstyle that's a way of life'
For starters, vhs and cassete tapes were/are analog and quite frankly the quality on them sucks. But the main reason that the RIAA is so hopping mad is two-fold:
1. With mp3 (and the internet) you can copy someones cd who lives in a different country (try that with a cassete tape).
2. I think a big part of the push to cds and away from cassetes was to STOP people from being able to pirate music with cassetes. They finally got everyone on cd's so they couldn't copy music anymore(try finding a new release on cassete) and all the sudden cd-r's are cheap.
Honestly though, I think we all know that the RIAA is barking up the wrong tree, but they are a special interest group. The RIAA doesn't want any new changes in the medium of music transmission unless they pick the medium. After all, they chose cd's..CONSUMERS chose mp3. They are no longer in control and it pisses them off.
Stepping back from the technical issues, what purpose do the record companies serve? Answer - to distribute recordings of music.
:-) is an indie-style label supporting new artists, and distributing via MP3 and CD AT LOW COSTS. I would support security for that, cos if you're not prepared to pay $3-4 for a CD, you don't deserve to live! :-) Major label may have the big names now, but the real issue is who picks up the next Hanson or Oasis, and if the record labels have their supply of new artists cut off they'll die within years. And there's quite a few small labels out there started by musicians (David Bowie, Dave Stewart, etc) who could easily pick this up.
Now we all know that record companies are actually in it for the truly _vast_ profits available, and the artists themselves actually don't get very much out of it. So the wider issue is: what's the best way to distribute music? And promote it?
Well the indie groups of the 80s came and went, partly bcos most of them weren't that good. But on the distribution side, they did make a fair-size dent, particularly in the nightclub/disco market. So what's probably needed for the next-gen record companies (and give me a break if you start hearing shades of 'Imagine' here
So to a real extent it's up to the artists to vote with their feet - we've told them how we want music to be, now they can choose how to do it.
But the other issue is where artists get their real money from, and the key here is MORE LIVE PERFORMANCE. The Beatles, and pretty much every band up to the mid/late 80s, didn't get big by record labels, and didn't get that much money that way either - the concept of bands (particularly manufactured boy/girl-bands) who can't perform live is a very new concept, and one which should be shot down. After all, even the Monkees (possibly the first manufactured band) could perform live.
Just a few incoherent thoughts...
Graham.
The CCS encryption doesn't prevent someone from making a bit-wise copy of a DVD. It just prevents someone from storing it to their hard disk in a usable form, OR, using/building a non-approved player to view a DVD. CCS has always been about limiting the DVD player market. Of course, the crack would let you translate a DVD so that it will work anywhere in the world, instead of just the original region.
If person A was never going to buy person B's item but duplicates it (ie it wasn't worth $30 to A, but it was worth 5 minutes). Then person B didn't lose an item or a sale. This differs from theft where person B loses the item as well.
Yes, in the real world it's more complicated as person A gives a copy to his mate etc and person B might lose a sale, but there is still a large distinction.
I think you misunderstand why we think what they are doing is stupid. I don't think it's stupid because of our 'right to evaluate' or whatever, I think it's stupid because:
- It will fail
- It will cost them money
- It will cost us delays in getting the HDTV
- It will fail
It makes you think they are ignorant suits who actually *believe* someone with a bridge^H^H^H^H^Hcopy protection scheme to sell.
hehe, I'll sell you one.
It's a lose-lose scenario for them I'm afraid to say.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
Notwithstanding the mournful, plaintive cries of the Liberal storm troopers aching for the NWO to get moving and conquer America properly (rather than quietly and in bits and pieces as they are now doing -- have you heard any news from Michigan lately? Its new rulers have blacked out all coverage), I think we can solve this property rights issue very easily -- and conveniently for all of those whose legitimate interests are threatened.
Let's face it, the work, in its entirety, belongs to whoever put up the capital to publish it. If the Rolling Stones didn't have a record deal, they'd be nothing. Their label, however, could just hire somebody else to make the same records of the Stones walked off. So really, the artist is irrelevant and has no rights of any description. They're all drug-addled perverts anyway. The only thing that matters is the guy with the checkbook. The customer is only buying the right to listen to the work, and certainly has no conceivable right to make copies or anything of that nature.
So here's the plan: All computers will be required by law to run a background process at all times (disablement of which will constitute an attempt to commit felony copyright infringement, with a number of counts to be determined by the time span during which the daemon is disabled divided by average song length). This process will detect attempts at copying. Operating systems which refuse to implement this in the kernel can only be doing so in order to facilitate copyright infringement; this is a felony. If you have nothing to hide, you'll play by the rules. The record companies have a compelling interest here, sorry. If we allow copying, we'll be destroying their incentives and the economy will be in flames within the week. It happened in the Soviet Union, and it can happen here. We must preserve the freedom of our economy at all costs. Furthermore, the monitor of each computer will contain a large, heavy, spring-loaded mallet. The law will require that the copy-detection process activate the mallet and clobber any user who attempts to copy any sound files of any description (statistics show that the segment of the population which creates its own files is statistically negligible, and the success of Mayor Giuliani in fighting crime has taught us that guilt-by-statistics can be implemented with no loss of voter confidence). Tampering with the copy-detection process will, obviously, incur the wrath of the mallet as well.
So there you have it. If any of you sick, whining liberal pansies want to take issue with this, don't even bother. Your hilarious irrationalities (esp. yours, JustShootMe) amuse me but they will not and can not deter me from my tireless efforts in the defense of liberty. Extremism in the defense of liberty is, as the man said, no vice.
To base a society on the principle that it is okay to steal from others is socially destructive.
The RIAA steals from people all the time. They claim that you are buying the rights to listen to the music contained on the disk (rather than the recording itself). So why is it then that if the CD gets broken, they charge exactly the same amount for a new copy (rather than the reasonable costs of media and handling)? After all, I supposedly bought lifetime rights to personal playback the first time around. If I want a CD for home, and a cassette for the car, they still charge full price even if I buy both at the same time so that there can be no doubt that I am paying twice for the same license.
Could it be that their party line is more of a convieniant excuse than an honest belief? Now we move on to fair use. Up until the latest massive lobbying efforts of RIAA, the consumer had an absolute legal right to make personal use copies of any music they licensed (bought). Now that they have lined enough pockets to get the laws changed, they are flexing their muscle to force the makers of players to cripple a perfectly good product and add cost to the units. Having to actually cough up more money to pay for a feature that is actively hostile to my use of the player is insult added to injury. I have to pay for that even if I decide to boycott the music and movie industries in favor of indepandants who are more free with their product.
I do not complain about RIAA or the movie industry protecting what's theirs, I complain about them offering one thing, but giving me something else. I complain about the presumption of guilt implicit in the copy protection systems (yes, I realize that innocent until proven guilty is only guarenteed in criminal law, but the principle is the same even if the guarentee is not).
A final note, I was reflecting the other day on why digital video tapes and data DAT and audio DAT are not compatable. They all have the same basic specification, and the transport and read/write mechanisms are REMARKABLY similar, but are just different enough to prevent compatability. Because of that, I can't just pop the tape of my last vacation into my backup tape drive and read off the mpeg-1 stream directly.
The only reason for that incompatability that makes any sense is pressure from the RIAA and movie industry. I'm pretty sure that's the reason, the only alternatives include: The makers of those products decided that re-inventing the wheel is fun, and the R&D costs just don't matter or they limited the appeal to consumers because they just hate having to add all those large numbers in their ledgers.
It's impossible to disagree with these obvious statements.
Is the above statement equally obvious?
I don't think so.
The above reasoning comes from the idea that copyrighted works and patents are Intellettual Property .
They are not.
They are a Temporary Concession granted by the Social Community to the copyright and patent holder.
It is logical and expected that the law protects these grant.
The use of words like theft, robbery, property has only the effort of making things look worse.
The use of distribution media that enforces these grant forever is even doubiously legal, IMHO.
If copying a DVD is illegal even when the copyright on its content will be expired, then I smell something wrong.
Just my 2 euro.
As far as I can tell, your entire argument is based on the above hypothesis. Too bad it's so wrong.
I have approximately 600 audio CDs, give or take a hundred. (I don't really know how many.) (And no, I didn't pirate them; I bought them.) Have you ever seen 600 audio CDs? It is a physical storage problem. They use a lot of space, and in order to make it easy to find the CD that I want, I try to keep them sorted. I say 'try' because every week or so when I get some new CDs, I have to do insertions. That's actually more work than I normally care to do. I have tried various types of racks and such, but so far, all of the physical media storage solutions fall short. Maybe if someone will invent a CD tower that uses binary trees to support log-n searches and insertions, they'll make some money off me.
Not to mention that it uses up a lot of physical space, yet needs to be in a place where I can access it easily.
I have figured out a solution to my problem. The solution is to feed my CDs into a computer, where they'll be MP3 encoded all onto a single hard disk. If I fill that disk, I'll just buy another disk. Then the CDs can be put into cardboard boxes out of the way somewhere. Whenever I want to play something it'll just be point'n'click. And I bet the computer won't have nearly as much trouble keeping them sorted as I did. What if I want to listen to something in the car? The best solution would be to copy some of the MP3 files to CDR/Zip/tape/flashram, and then get some kind of portable player for it.
And then there's my videotape collection. It's currently manageable, as long as I don't get too many more of them. But when I look at all those huge VHS tapes and compare them to the size of my 4 Gig DDS-2 tapes (and I imagine that DDS-3 and DDS-4 are even more efficient), the idea of MPEG compressing them to digital media is rather attractive.
This is theft? No, it's fair use -- as defined both by law, and common sense. I should be able to store multimedia however the hell I want to. Storage is my decision, not the content provider's.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Analogue dubbing was always rife, but remember how in school you might have got a third or fourth generation tape and the quality was terrible? Obviously digital recording is perfect (compression issues aside).
MP3's are rampant though. Never before has something come along on this scale. Software piracy is an issue, but not like this. There are billions of songs out there, and that's almost literal. People dispute claims of software piracy, saying "I wouldn't have bought it anyway". I know people who suck entire CDs down off the web. CDs they *would* have bought.
I don't think the "I have a right to evaluate a song" argument holds up. I have NEVER seen someone download an mp3, think "I like that, I'll go buy it now" and delete the mp3. To clarify, of course I (and many others) have bought CD's after hearing mp3s, but this argument really doesn't hold up to a lot of scrutiny.
Scapegoat? Sure. I don't think anyone here needs reminding of how mass media plays on the "terrorists, p0rn mongers and spammers" image.
But I think the issue of MP3s is actually quite legitimate, and worthy of some 'action', though no idea what.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
What the RIAA is saying makes sense, if you accept their business model as the only way to distribute recorded material for profit.
The kind of personal digital control that people are regaining over the mediums that surround them is forcing certain industries to take a hard look at what it is they sell. Does the RIAA promote the sale of plastic discs in colourful cases, or do they sell music?
Once they stop fighting for the things that they sell, rather than the ideas that they sell then they can start focusing on a business model that works.
As far as I'm concerned, the cat is out of the bag as far as digital distribution goes. The RIAA can spend its last remaining years of importance fighting to put it back in, or it can find a better way to do things.
Hotnutz.com
Someone out there has spent time and effort and probably their own money creating some product be it music, a movie, whatever.
so THEY are entitled to get all their money back, even if environmental changes totally alter the distrubution system such that every single person in the world could appreciate their art WITHOUT ANY EFFORT, COST, or ATTENTION by the creating artist or controlling producer.
If you make a copy, that is theft - pure and simple - you have taken something which is not yours.
Theft, pure and simple eh? So if you read a book, get an idea, and think about that idea, then tell someone else about that idea, you have "stolen" it from the author. Sure the book is still there, sure the words are still there for anybody else to read, but it's still stealing, right? bah!
What exactly have I "taken" when I get an MP3 from Napster? What is moved? What is lost? What have I taken control of?
So the big deal is all about protecting what is the legal property of someone.
No the big deal is about lobbying to create laws that build a framework to control and limit something that is inherently infinite, and could benefit society in a variety of ways.
To base a society on the principle that it is okay to steal from others is socially destructive.
To base a society on principles that it is bad to share with others is socially destructive.
When will people grow up and stop trying to pretend that theft is okay - try taking responsibility for your actions.
Right after you grow up and realize that it isn't the same world that it was 5 years ago, and those laws which define the "theft" of infinite products should be thrown out like yesterday's trash.
Why do you think people have this opinion of young computer people being pirates? Could it possible be because they hear comments from pirates trying to defend the undefensible?
Could it possibly be that there are enough slow witted folks to agree with the people condemning the pirates, while not realizing that the condemners are the same ones losing money because they didn't realize the world had changed underneath them, that we will be denied access to and the ability to share beautiful things?
+&x
We see copy protection as being annoying - a tool used by these agencies to keep people from doing something that they're going to do anyway; it just slows them down. I think a lot of times this is the greedy point-of-view. Industries are desperate to hold on to *any* protection they can get, because they're afraid that without it they'll start losing their sales.
And they have good reason to be afraid. If bandwidth and hard drive space continue to increase in size and decrease in price, piracy will explode on the Internet. You think it's bad now, just wait -- you haven't seen anything yet. So here's my take (finally):
Let them implement their protection schemes. Nobody's forcing anyone to use any particular scheme, right? I mean, theoretically a movie producer could release an unencrypted DVD, if they felt so inclined. If you happen to release some work of your own, protect it. Or don't. Make the choice yourself, and allow others to make the choice for themselves with their works. If the unprotected way is really the best way, then it'll come around. Or consumers will vote with their feet -- that's the way the market works.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Think about it - a recoding artist is in exactly the same position as a small programmer - needs to distribute the result of his or her craft - but worries about being ripped of.
In the past they depended on a distributor to get their work out to their customers - now they have the net - they don't need the distributor provided they can get enough cusatomer mind-share - and they can reduce the price of their product enourmously if there's no distributor/retailer taking a cut.
The problem we all face - "how can we help the artists/programmers/writers/... the people who create the bits - make a reasonable living off of their work?".
The media distribution industry is toast - they just don't know it yet - and they aren't going to go away without a fight - they have a lot of lawyers and a lot of money in the bank ..... they just aren't required any more -if we can find a way to get money to the people who make the bits we can strangle them from both ends.
The way I see it there are two possible situations with MP3's either: 1) People will trade them like crazy and nobody will buy CD's. 2) People will be exposed to more music and perhaps purchase more of it. Personally I don't have the luxury of an mp3 player at my car, work, home, school, gym, etc... so when I hear something I like I buy the CD. As a matter of fact I buy more cd's now that I listen to more music. Another possibility could be the recent trend in the mass marketing of music. If you haven't noticed all the radio stations are being bought up by a small group of companies since degregulation occured. There is no more local marketing to specific groups or regions, we are now spoon fed what they think will sell to the most people. Perhaps MP3's are a threat to this monopolostic tendency? I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just suggesting that there is probably more to the story than meets the eye. The movie and music industry has survived tapes(video and audio) as well as cd burners. Plus only part of the money they make is from cd purchases. There must be more than meets the eye. What do you think fellow /. readers?
"as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. (One man's humorous is another mans flamebait)
um, last I checked, I can copy anything I please. In fact, I do make backups of every CD I buy, since CD-R's can be had for 50 cents apiece. It's only if I distribute something I copied that I break the law. That's what RIAA doesn't want you to know - they want you to believe that any form of copying is piracy, so you'll swallow their copy protection measures. I'm sorry if it sounds like nitpicking, but I felt compelled to clear that up...
The question isn't of whether the big companies should be scared of piracy as we've been able to pirate CDs if different formats for years. Simply buy a $20 piece of hardware for a playstation and voila, $3 and a rental at schlockbuster gets you a $30+ video game. An hour online at 56k and a CD burner and $3 gets you an entire audio CD. Neither of these markets have colapsed yet. Even though it doesn't have the quality of of a digital copy, analog video copies offer very good quality until you get to about the 4th generation or so. The same goes for audio tapes. I can record a program off HBO or Showtime and save myself $19.95. You know why this market hasn't colapsed? Because people are willing to pay $20 for a video or DVD or $15 for a CD or $50 for a video game. It's inexpensive, and honestly not worth the effort of illegal piracy. Only when piracy becomes impossible will people be forced to pay more than they should; and then this will be the time in which piracy will be needed most.
The ABSTRUSE One
Jason Byrons
"You all laugh at me because I'm different
I laugh at you because you're a
I like it. Someone has got the balls to point out that RIAA or no, theft from the artist is still theft.
There are two weak spots in your post though. First of all, the easy one:
"If you make a copy, that is theft - pure and simple - you have taken something which is not yours."
This is true in many cases, but is not a given. If I make a tape from a CD which I've purchased, so I can listen to it in the car, it is not theft. If I make a compilation of all the songs Martha Wainright has recorded (on the McGarrigles' CD, on Dan Bern's CD, and on her own), and I own all of the CDs I'm copying from, it is not theft. The artists, the RIAA, and the legal system all agree on this.
The other problem is that copy protection and so forth have not helped the artists--they've made money for the recording industry execs. Consider as a similar (not identical, I know) case in Canada right now. We just had a levy put on all blank media purchases to pay for illegal copying costs. Any of this levy that actually gets through the mill goes to the artists, based on total sales! In other words, Celine Dion gets a few buckets more money, the small artists get roughly nothing, and the tiny independent artists have to _pay_ extra for the blank media to record their original music!
Copy protection has historically done just as well at rewarding the artists. This is why I have recommended that anyone who copies a CD (or tape, or whatever) that they haven't bought should voluntarily mail five bucks or so directly to the artist. THEY'RE the ones who deserve it!
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Sounds drastic, but it's very real. On the audio side, SDMI's plan includes both "watermarking" and encrypting new audio content. Devices without decryptors can't play new content. If a device with a decryptor sees audio content that's watermarked but not encrypted, it won't play either. However, the SDMI crowd has backed off from the original plan, which was to deploy dual SDMI/MP3 devices which, when they played their first encrypted content, destroyed their MP3 play capability. The new plan is that if MP3-encoded watermarked data shows up, it won't play. The secret self-destruct mechanism seems to have gone away for now. The music industry views this as a major concession; it means no protection for legacy content. (i.e. MP3s of "oldies" will still work.)
Over on the video side, the DVD CSS people have a control freak's wet dream planned. The plan is to move decryption out to the monitor, so a clear image never exists in a user-programmable computer at all. This is the long-term plan to deal with the current "crack". Part of the plan includes encrypted handshaking between everything on the home net to insure that everything has "approved" protection mechanisms. Plans are underway to encrypt DVD's, cable, Internet A/V content, and even broadcast TV if the FCC will stand for it. Deployment will come with HDTV.
On the legal front, the criminal "anti-circumvention" provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act kick in this month. Look for arrests regarding DVD CSS soon.
We will soon have two choices - either buy hardware and software that is closed, or don't play entertainment content.
- RIAA (or whoever) are greedy bastards
- they are stupid for even trying to copy protect
- we've been able to do it for years with analogue - what's the big deal
- I have a 'right' to evaluate music even if I don't own it
- it's about the bottom line
- they feel threatened
- etc etc
Now don't get me wrong, I would love to pay nothing for my music and video/DVD etc. And I don't claim to be an angel when it comes to never ever pirating *ahem* backing up stuff, but let's get a reality check!Someone out there has spent time and effort and probably their own money creating some product be it music, a movie, whatever.
If you make a copy, that is theft - pure and simple - you have taken something which is not yours. You can try and hide your actions by cloaking it in phrases like 'making a backup', or it 'they won't notice' or whatever, but there can be no argument that it is theft.
So the big deal is all about protecting what is the legal property of someone. To base a society on the principle that it is okay to steal from others is socially destructive.
All the other excuses (they feel threatened, bottom line etc) are not the main issue. The main issue is protection of what is legally theirs.
To feel that the big organisations of the ilk of the RIAA are making a big deal out of nothing, shows the attitude of entitlement that seems to foster amongst many people who whine about the actions of the RIAA.
Complain about high CD prices - that is fair enough. Complain about someone trying to protect what is theirs, and you sound like someone who has no connection with the values that every society is based on.
When will people grow up and stop trying to pretend that theft is okay - try taking responsibility for your actions. Why do you think people have this opinion of young computer people being pirates? Could it possible be because they hear comments from pirates trying to defend the undefensible?
I posted this on superspecialquestions.com, the web BBS that M. Doughty (of the band Soul Coughing) runs.
.wav or .mp3 file? Such programs exist, and they get called "cracks", and talked about as if they're seriously under the table. They're hard to find. Are they illegal? What about the simple solution -- if I get a headphone-plug-to-headphone-plug cable, put one end in the "out" jack on my sound card, put the other end in the "in" jack, and play the Liquid Audio track while I record to a regular wave file? Is that legal? Wave files are easy to encode as mp3s. Am I allowed to redistribute the resulting file?
g ht.html
// I enjoy it when people like my music, but it's MY music. I did it. I put myself into it, and it's mine. I have a right to be compensated for it if you want to use it. The free distribution of mp3's takes away that right//
legislating the number OR i'll chew my audio, thanks.
The 5% nation has switched from offering an mp3-encoded Soul Coughing recording each month in favor of releasing a greater volume of material in the Liquid Audio format -- the catch being that these Liquid Audio files are only playable for 30 days.
The deal, as I understand it, is that more music can be released in the Liquid Audio format, since the 30-day timeout makes a future commercial release of the music more lucrative.
Let me explain why I feel this is a Bad Thing. The issue is complicated, but I'll be as breif as I can.
Liquid Audio is very different from mp3.
First, it's a "secure format". That means that (either by patent or trade secret) only Liquid Audio (the company) and its licensees can make players for these files. It also means that you can't easily convert a Liquid Audio track into another format.
Second, that 30-day time limit is more than just an inconvenience. It raises questions. Clearly I'm not supposed to be able to get around that 30-day limit. But is it a legal restriction, or just a technological one? What's the legal status of a program I might write to to convert a Liquid Audio file into a
If we don't ask questions like these, they're going to be answered the way record companies want rather than the way we (as either fans or musicians) might want. Explaining why those answers aren't likely to be the same is a little bit of a task. I'll do the best I can, and provide links. If you're interested, they'll cover the topic much more thoroughly than I'm going to here.
About Mp3:
There is a political battle being fought over the mp3 format. Mp3, like many formats to come (trust me here), makes it possible to store and transfer high-quality audio recordings digitally within reasonable a size range and with reasonable transfer speed. This is becomes increasingly true as storage and network technologies allow for larger and larger files to be reasonable for storage and transfer. Suddenly, it's physically possible to receive and entire albums in digital format over the internet. No one needs to manufacture a CD. No one needs to ship CDs to stores. No one needs to run stores, and no one needs to go out to stores to get music. Record companies are terrified. That's because the business of physically distributing music media is very profitable, and in the near future, it will probably be very outdated -- unless record companies get their way and are able to create an artificial demand for the distribution of music. They've banded together as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to fight mp3. One of the most effective arguments they're using to convince people that such a system needs to be put in place deals with artist compensation and copyright protection. But before I get into that, here are some links for information on mp3 and what record companies are doing about it:
http://www.riaa.com/
http://slashdot.org/ (search for "RIAA")
http://david.weekly.org/writings/sdmi.php3
About Copyright:
There was a time when Copyright made perfect sense. When printing presses were the only way to copy a publishable work, the trade-off was universally beneficial. Printing presses were expensive. Copyright made it possible for people with printing presses to profit from publishing a peice of writing, and didn't limit the rights of people who didn't have printing presses, since they had no reasonable way to copy printed works anyway. People with printing presses were happy, people without printing presses lost nothing of value, and authors could be rewarded for their efforts. When we stretch copyright to cover digital media, however, things get a lot more complicated. Anyone can copy a computer file. In fact, copying digital media is implicit in doing a lot of things that we have other metaphors for as well. To view this web page, for example, you've got to copy it from a server on the Internet. In its journey from that server to your computer, it is copyied between many other computers on the internet that you never have to pay attention to. When it arrives at your computer, it is copied around several times in RAM to get it into a format that will make sense to you, and it is probably copied from the RAM onto your disk for temporary storage to speed things up if you want to view it again in the near future. Then it's copied to a special place in the RAM, which is read by your video card, which then transforms it into the light you're seeing. Then it gets copied about in very similar ways in your eyes, your optic nerves, and in your brain. Worse, the whole web page, like any Liquid Audio track, image, or computer program, is represented within your computer as a number. What are the consequenses of legislating the rights people have over numbers and how they chose to interpret them? Copyright in the present day has become a very complicated issue. It's obviously still important to reward artists and authors for their work, but it's not at all clear how we should do it. Here are some links to pages which talk about what's wrong with the kind of Copyright that many record companies (and software companies before them) are in favor of:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyri
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/dat.html
http://www.public-domain.org/old.html
Because of the mp3s released via the 5% nation, I used to count Soul Coughing amoungst the most politically progressive bands in terms of digital media policy. Such venerable (and notably non-major-record-label-affiliated) musicians as Frank Black and They Might Be Giants have released entire albums in the mp3 format. While I'm not sure it's really up to musicians to keep tabs on issues like these, it's certainly nice to see.
and this is an exerpt from a later post in the thread:
I can go out on the street right now and start selling fire. I can make the fire by banging some rocks together near some dry leaves, and I can sell it on sticks. If you've ever actually tried to start a fire by banging rocks together, you know that it's pretty difficult. So it would take a lot of hard work to make that fire. But if someone bought my fire from me, they could just turn around and start spreading it onto other sticks, and giving it away! Shouldn't I have some kind of right to profit from the fire I worked so hard to make? I don't think so. It was just a bad investment. Anyone can make fire cheap, and once fire is made, anyone can spread it cheap. What right do I have to stop them?
It comes back to the issue of how we're goinging to make music something someone can reasonably do for a living. I don't know how we should do that, but I know that a situation in which musicians get paid because people aren't allowed to do something which is essentially very easy to do will never work out. Getting controlled substances is considerably harder than copying digital media, and look how well the War on Drugs is doing. So why don't we drop that idea and start thinking very hard about what we can do instead?
If I want a new car, I cant sell my old. The licence says so.
My car only runs in one region. If I move, or travel I will need separate cars for separate regions. And of cource an imported car won't run here.
If my car is broken I am not allowed to fix it. I must buy a new one.
These new cars dont work on some roads. However It is forbidden to modify a car to do so, even if you have the skill.
Of cource these regulations are only there to protect the intellectual property of the car designers. Hey, they actually get 1 cent for every car sold.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Put simply, technology never supported an encryption option before, nor would it have been a salable feature for consumers.
If someone put out a version of the Philips cassette which was impossible to duplicate from, this 'feature' would meet with a singular lack of enthusiasm from consumers. Let's get creative and add that the new Philips cassette not only can't be copied from, but will only play on the tape player that you have, plus there's the option of spending a dollar less for a tape that will play only ten times and then destroy itself neatly without injuring the drive.
Well, woo frickin' hoo- what a triumph of technology for purposes either orthoganal or hostile to what the consumer wants! This would not fly. At the time of the 33rpm LP, the Philips cassette, even the CD, this sort of thing was not attempted. DAT was 'secure' from unauthorised consumer use- and DAT died in the consumer market.
The goal of the recording industry, and indeed the movie industry as well, is to establish a new playing field in which none of the power falls into the consumers' hands. You buy your DVD- if you move to another area you have to buy another copy of the DVD for that area's players. Limited-play media are another recurring industry wet dream, especially when confronted with the specter of 'perfect media that lasts forever'. The fact of vastly cheaper media production than the old days combined with raised prices on the grounds of higher quality is nice for the industry, sure, but perfect media copying scares them... hence the paradigm change.
The change is from rude methods of interoperability (many people make audio cassettes, but they all pretty much play on all the decks you can buy, due to rigorous specs as to the dimensions of the cassette shell and standards for tape speed and dimensions), forced by the reliance on cruder analog media, to the new world of entirely virtual media- media that is no more and no less than a bunch of data. The data is easier to standardize- but it is too accessible! Any clown could write that format, or alternately could suck the data off the disk and start making identical copies. So the paradigm is to treat media, data, like it is hostile software- the word encryption, and especially the word security, give people a sense of potential danger safely contained.
But whose safety is being protected? Hint: it is not the consumer's. Indeed, in many ways the world of the media consumer, with data that can only be played on regionally localized players, data that is only rented and though you own the container you only are licensed to view the data in certain ways and don't own even the copy you purchased, data that is increasingly way beyond the consumer's ability to comprehend or control- this world is less safe for the consumer than the days of 45s and LPs. The consumer is increasingly restricted, controlled, and where once the idea of a consumer's copying off loads of tapes was seen as an intolerable abuse of the consumer's reasonable freedoms, now we approach an era where the consumer may be literally not allowed to own their own media. Instead, he or she can only be trusted to buy and care for the carrier media for streams of data- which are marked off as explicitly not the consumer's property, and which may be so well defended that the consumer can only plunk a dvd into a player and watch the fiberoptics deliver a tightly encrypted datastream into a black box in a _speaker_... inaccessible, unopenable. One wonders if the music and film industries are devising scuttling charges, so that if evil hacker people try to open the black boxes, they destroy themselves, thus preserving their secrets and forever withholding... the consumer's purchase from the consumer.
That's the paradigm change, bigtime. Are you buying the data of a song when you buy the CD, or are you only buying permission to listen to the sounds? If you analyzed the grooves of a record to determine the harmonic content of Pink Floyd, would you be thrown in jail for it? Obviously not- the concept is absurd, you own the physical record. Now, what if you crack the encryption to run a fast fourier analysis on the harmonic content of a Pink Floyd DVD? Curious how the activity is the same, but all of a sudden you're in jail for what you are doing with your possession... or is it your possession?
*sigh*
I don't know about anybody else but I know where I stand on the matter. I have purchased a modern 20-bit ADAT (an 8 track digital audio recorder) and will be producing music again, after rather a long hiatus. I'll be releasing this music in MP3 and seeing if maybe I sell 'original master' CDs on the side. I also intend to offer free recording to the likes of slashdot nerds who also intend to release mp3s for free. If I end up too busy I might also require that the musician code something and release it under the gpl ;) but anyway, each of us eventually find our own best battlefield. For me it is using my sound engineering and musical skills (which are better than my writing or coding skills) for the purpose of the new media- putting a big-ass stake in the ground of mp3, lest trendy encrypted _crap_ wash it away. And yeah, I'd give up profit for that cause. It's not so much about 'where I want to be' as 'where I'm just not willing to go', and I confess to serious dread and ill feeling over the rage for encryption and redefinition of entertainment media as stuff that's owned by big corporations and only _lent_ to consumers on promise of good behavior. I do not think my behavior warrants my 'license to own music data' being revoked unconditionally- I don't think it's reasonable that I not be allowed to open the box and poke around inside it to see how it works and maybe break it, or maybe get it to work better.
I build audio gear now- but when I was a kid I killed something like four cassette 4-tracks :) I wanted them to do more! sound better! and I took them apart and tried to do things to make the sound bigger or brighter or just generally more amazing. This usually did not work, but eventually I learned neat and useful things.
It horrifies me that the kid like me, today, trying to take apart digital media and make it bigger and better, is a criminal- not for plans to make bootleg copies for all his little friends (that wasn't my concern either), but for having the arrogance to want to take apart the media and do it a different way. We now have a situation in which people are harrassed as criminals for simply grappling with information- not government secrets, not 'if you open this the warranty is *buahahaha!*', but criminal liability and court involvement to punish what I was doing for years as a reclusive geeky kid. And I find that quietly intolerable, and cannot coexist with it.
So geek musicians, keep posted, be ready to travel to Vermont (not like I can afford to do road trips!), because I'm moving as fast as I can, trying to answer this situation with action. I want to get _great_ music out there with sound that meets or beats the best the industry can offer, and have it be data that people can _have_ and do what they wish with. I've made that rant before. On the eve of my wonderful 20 bit adat arriving (yaaaaay!) I am ranting it again. There can be no coexistence with me and the industry- I hope more people come to that realisation within themselves. I'm no pirate and do not steal the music industry's so-paranoidly-guarded wares. In fact, I don't even download mp3s- I intend to make them and _upload_ them. I don't want to make the industry poor, I want to make them irrelevant. >:)
Cheers, slashdotters. -chris
Recent stories on Slashdot have told of the ongoing "tennis match" between digital content providers versus consumers and technically skilled people. The recent cracking of DVD's Content Scrambling System (CSS) lent ammunition to the opinion held by computing professionals and users that copy protection systems are doomed to fail. The effort has been likened to building a dam against the ocean; a foolish and useless exercise. In Slashdot discussion fora, the point has often been raised, "If you can perceive it, you can copy it. What are they going to do, encrypt the bits all the way to the speaker/electron gun?" If the Copy Protection Technical Working Group gets its way, that is precisely what's going to happen.
I received a piece of email spam today, which actually turned out to be useful (probably the only time that's ever happened anywhere). It directed me to a flat panel display industry group. Among others, one of the links pointed to the California Display Network, which had a link pointing to technical info on flat panel technology. Since I currently earn my living writing graphics card and display drivers, I clicked through to see what I could learn.
I found an entry for an overview of digital visual interfaces, provided by Silicon Image. As I reviewed the headings of the slides, one entry stopped me cold: Conten t Protection Status. Content protection? In a flat panel?? Yup: "Implementation of DVI content protection is suitable for PCs and monitors." [emphasis mine]
Thus began an evening of link clicking and Google searches to find out what this off-handed remark could mean. The slide made mention of the 'CPTWG'. This is the Copy Protection Technical Working Group, a consortium of content providers (movie companies), consumer electronics manufacturers, and players in the IT industry. This is the same group that developed CSS for DVD players.
One paragraph from the above page is particularly disturbing:
The most recent meeting of the CPTWG was yesterday, 8 December, 1999. Their meeting announcements may be found here. According to the December meeting announcement, the next meetings will occur on 11 January, 2000, and 9 February, 2000. It costs $100 to attend.
The attendance roster from the November meeting (PDF file, sorry) lists a very interesting, and possibly worrying, mix of organizations. A partial list of representatives included:
If you download the roster and read closely, you'll see every major piece of your computer represented. There is no doubt that at least one part of your computer -- your CPU, your RAM, your disk drive, your graphics card, your monitor -- is manufactured by one of these companies.
If you look further still, you'll see there are no consumer advocacy groups listed.
What are they all working toward? Quite simply, to prevent you from using your lawfully obtained digital material in any way they don't want.
Here's one example of how they'll do it: If you've visited Fry's or CompUSA recently, you'll notice that full-size flat panel displays are starting to appear. Currently, most of these displays are based on the old VGA analog signals, which are converted into the digital signals needed by the panels. The Digital Display Working Group is working on a new connector and signalling standard called Digital Visual Interface (DVI) that will allow computer displays to go all-digital. You won't need a DAC on the video card; the digital signals will be fed straight through to the display. Image fidelity will be much higher, since there won't be any intervening DAC/ADC conversions. Version 1.0 of the standard has been published and is available for download (PDF format). The DVI spec currently does not stipulate copy protection measures. However, plans are in the works to incorporate it.
Intel is one of the primary contributors to this effort. On Intel's developer site, they have some papers on copy protection for IEEE 1394 (Firewire) digital streams. In two separate articles, 1394-based Digital Content Protection: an Intel Proposal, and Content Protection for IEEE 1394 Serial Buses (the latter being a Powerpoint presentation masquerading as a PDF file), Intel outlines its proposal for protecting digital content over Firewire. By using cryptographic authentication techniques, a device offering digital content will "handshake" with other devices on the bus to assure that digital data is only received by, "compliant devices." In a revised overview of the proposal, IDF Talk: Content Protection for the IEEE 1394 Bus, Intel offers concrete implementation details, including:
The full proposal (currently version 0.91), with lots of technical detail, is mirrored on CPTWG's site (the links to Intel's site don't work).
Intel's proposal also recommends that the copy protection system be field-upgradeable to thwart ongoing attacks, and that it should be possible to revoke (read: disable) a device determined to be "compromised." (The tone of the proposals is also interesting. It's previously been thought that, because of USB, Intel is hostile to IEEE 1394. Yet these proposals suggest that Intel's quite enthusiastic about 1394... Once copy protection is incorporated.)
Intel's proposal mentions only IEEE 1394. However, it also mentions that there's nothing preventing the technique being applied generally to any bi-directional link. So for all occurrences of '1394', substitute 'DVI', and you've got an idea of what to look forward to in your new digital monitor. And your new DVD player. And your new HDTV set. And your new USB speakers.
Intel goes even further in their paper, A Framework for DVD-Audio Content Protection. In it, the author suggests that DVD-Audio recorders permanently remember the IRSC (International Standard Recording Code) of every song the device is asked to copy, so that it may only be copied once, period. They go on to suggest that the recorder could have a modem built-in to authorize (read: purchase) the ability to make additional copies.
In short, through this industry consortium, Hollywood proposes to exert control over every link in the digital chain, from the digital camera, to the disk drive, to the CPU, to the graphics card, to your display. They will decide what rights you have. Even if a court decides Fair Use includes multiple copies for personal use (such as assembling a video montage), it won't matter. Your computer will still refuse to make the copies (and probably fink on you, as well).
This coordinated effort is ostensibly to combat unsanctioned copying (which the industry chronically refers to incorrectly as 'theft' and 'piracy'). However, no one has ever been able to provably quantify the value of unrealized sales due to such copying. All dollar estimates that have been published are just that: estimates, based on idealized extrapolations of what-if scenarios. Moreover, although the industry claims to "lose" billions every year, they continue to post record profits. Finally, despite the proliferation of CDR drives and the Internet, most unrealized sales are the result of organized mass counterfeiting rings, not casual copying. None of the proposed methods I've seen appear to thwart mass counterfeiting at all. So clearly there's some other reason for all this.
The thing that puzzles me most is why the computer and consumer electronics industries haven't told Hollywood to take a hike. Intel's copy protection proposals state, in bold letters, "No content protection = No Hollywood content." This belief is taken as axiomatic by all the players, and appears to be the driving force behind the entire effort. This belief is also false.
Audio on CDs are recorded as plaintext, and the music industry continues to earn rapacious profits. Even the with the advent of CDRs, no music industry executive in his right mind would suggest dropping CD sales and going strictly with cassettes and vinyl. If nothing else, the manufacturing costs for CDs are lower than those for cassettes and vinyl. Likewise, DVDs are tremendously cheaper to produce than videotapes. Videotape duplication is a labor-intensive process; DVDs can be stamped out automatically. The savings in cost-of-goods alone would more than balance against any unrealized sales from casual copying. Corporate shareholders, always mindful of the bottom line, will also demand that the studios move to the cheaper, higher-quality process, copy protected or not.
The fact is that the computer and electronics firms are in the driver's seat, and are free to dictate how the new digital formats will work. Hollywood will use whatever format becomes popular, whether it has copy protection or not. They may grumble about it, but they'll use it. The economics afford them little choice.
We are only now beginning to explore the social and ethical consequences of a Star Trek-like universe where everything can be infinitely duplcated at zero cost. We have no idea where things will end up. But now is not the time to start erecting electronic walls and imposing artificial scarcity. The ignoble and richly-deserved death of DIVX showed -- fairly unequivocally, I thought -- that consumers want to make free, fair use of their digital media, without interference from outside. I believe its death reinforces the future toward which we've been pushing for centuries: Increased abundance at reduced cost.
Nevertheless, the CPTWG and the organizations supporting it are blindly moving forward. It may turn out it's impossible to dam the ocean, but they're gearing up to give it one hell of a try. We can only hope that the lesson of DIVX will be repeated until it is learned.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
There are some major differences between now and 5-10 years ago, which make this a much bigger issue than it was then.
Copying of movies and music certainly existed then (which is why even really old videos have that FBI warning on them), but it was limited in several respects. First of all, the media you mention, like all media back then, was analog, and duplication of analog media produces an irreducible loss of quality. To a lesser extent, even playback damages them. This means that one can only copy a tape a certain number of times before it becomes useless. Futhermore, real movie/music buffs won't settle for anything less than top quality, which means the original tape as sold by the studio or label.
This changed with the advent of CD and (recently) DVD. With digial media, one can easily make an exact copy of the original, and digital media generally don't wear out either. This is what terrifies the studios about DVD, and what bothered the labels about CD when it first came out- not the prospect of copying, but the prospect of perfect digital copying.
More importantly, the difference lies in distribution. 5 years ago, even though CD writers did exist, piracy wasn't a huge problem, except from large, organized pirating operations. This is because there is an irreducible cost contained in the physical media, and the shipping of that media. 5 years ago, if I wanted a song without paying for it, I would have to put in some effort, and a nonzero amount of money, to get ahold of it, whether paying for a blank CD or tape, or making the effort of locating someone with the song to copy from. On top of that, it involved a per-copy cost to the original owner- he must spend the time and effort to make each and every copy. The economic term for this is that there was a nonzero marginal cost for each additional copy. This put a practical limit on piracy- any given disc sold would be unlikely to produce more than, say, 5 pirated copies, and very few discs were pirated at all to begin with, so the problem was small. Imagine trying to pirate a DVD today. DVD CCA smokescreen aside, it's pretty much impossible- you have to find a copy of the movie, a DVD burner, and buy a blank DVD, which costs more than the legit movie does.
The internet is changing this situation rapidly. With mp3, the cost of distributing a pirated CD is essentially zero. There is a small bandwidth cost, but it is quite manageable thanks to MPEG compression. And, thanks to internet distribution, a single CD could easily spawn thousands of pirated copies, because once the disc is ripped, the marginal cost of giving the mp3s to someone is essentially zero, and so pirates became willing to give even complete strangers copies. On the other end, if I want a pirated song, I can get it for no more than the cost of my time searching for it, with no additional effort or cost to physically ship it or get it into playable form. This has led to a radical explosion of piracy.
Sooner or later, the same thing will probably happen to DVD. Right now, this is prevented by the combination of a high bandwidth cost and the absence of any software capable of playing a movie directly from a file stored on disc. The CSS crack will address the second relatively soon, leaving only the first. As the mp3 experience shows, that point is probably a lot closer than one might think- only a few years ago, distribution of CD-quality music over the 'net was unthinkable.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
I'm a small-time artist (or was not too long ago anyway). I don't pirate CDs. I really *do* delete mp3s I download if I don't plan to buy the album (and I've bought many albums after getting to hear a few more of the songs on it). When the predecessor of the RIAA tried to stop DAT, it hurt *me*; it took away a tool I needed to record and distribute my music. The industry tried to stop the VCR, reel to reel, and the compact cassette, all tools I needed and used to their fullest. When the RIAA bans mp3 (not that I think they'll succeed) it prevents me from distributing my own music (and trading legit amateur music with my friends). "You want to distribute music without a contract? You must be a criminal."
To drive the point home: Heard much from Joan Osbourne recently? No, because her recording label hasn't liked her second album attempts (she wanted to go in a different direction), refuses to release the music and yet retains rights to it all. Her only option is to not record again. Same with XTC (whose contract recently expired), Prince (who is so pissed at Sony he's planning to rerecord *all* of his hits from the 80s). Don't give me *any* line about the RIAA or the music industry having anyone's interests at heart; their own musicians won't come out to back them.
The RIAA represents corporations with a big fat cow of money at stake. It's common sense: They will act in their own interests. They'll try the easy ways and go for the biggest pot of cash first. That in itself is not greedy or evil (although it is amoral). The tactics they've decided to use are the worst kind of FUD. "You don't believe in the Free Market and Capitalism? You must be a criminal."
The RIAA wants to turn a battle for artists' rights (that's right; I'm on the artists'-- my-- side) into a piracy story. It is not in their interests for artists to have any freedom. That will cut into their profits, so what do you expect them to do? The DVD Forum (which doesn't particularly like Linux or OSS; they want you to play on platforms they can strike Deals with) are turning a battle entirely about interoperability into a battle about piracy. "You want to watch DVDs with unapproved software? You must be a criminal."
Monty
xiph.org