Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Forcing WMA standard?
CtrlPhreak writes "Cnet news.com has a story up stating that the music industry is considering having cds that contain the un-rippable tracks as well as the windows media formatted files with limited uses ala Microsoft's digital rights management. Just one more brick in Microsoft's continuing monopoly..." And another format that I can't play back. Hope this one dies fast.
Leaving a large bunch of pissed but brilliant programmers out in the cold just has to be a bad idea (just look at CSS) don't these music industry bozos ever learn ... if they choose a DRM system that's supported everywhere far fewer people will have the incentive to break their encryption - and it's not like they're in the music player software biz
I'm a DJ at my university's radio station. It is de facto station policy to not play anything by really well-known artists - i.e. Britney Spears will never come out of our transmitter. And there is no lack of "underground" music for us to play - music published by labels that aren't part of the RIAA juggernaut and aren't implementing these ridiculous copy controls. And a decent amount of it is of higher quality than anything I've heard from the major labels. Point is, there is plenty of good music out there if you don't want to be screwed over every time you buy a CD.
I've seen some really STUPID business practices during the past ten years, but i SWEAR TO GOD there have been none more idiotic than those of the RIAA. They are literally shooting themselves in their feet OVER and OVER AGAIN, and they act like they don't even realize it!!!
Actually the problem is that I didn't purchase my "device to play the music" that I do purchase. I just finished converting 199 CDs to mp3 for playback on a home built mp3 rack system. Of the 15 gigs (perhaps 2500 tracks) of MP3s that I have, there are a few dozen tracks that I have stolen. If the industry will cave in on their unreasonable ideas, I'll go out and buy a CD for each track that I have illegally.
Yes I do know that most people who have MP3s have collected them via the net. But that doesn't change the situation I'm in.
What new technologies (and the constantly increasing accessibility at any scale of technologies like burning CDs) present musicians and consumers alike with is the possibility of ditching the fat cat middlemen entirely, which would be fine since they do nothing for music but try to make everything a hit which turns 99.9% of everything they sell into indistinguishable, homogenized crap.
When you consider the global marketing potential that a little fearlessness when it comes to digital audio files and the internet presents the individual artist or band with, and the enormity of the cut that the parasitic media distribution conglomerates suck up between artists and consumers, it becomes clear that for artists and consumers alike copy protection is irrelevant.
All the industry frenzy over this issue has nothing to do with lost sales (which have been negligible) and everything to do with preventing independent concerns from commercializing and popularizing effective digital music distribution tools. Don't like this copy-impaired, we'll pick your compression format (and quality, natch) garbage? Write to your favorite INDIE record label or better yet your favorite unsigned, self- distributing or about-to-be-released-from-contract artists and tell THEM how you feel. They might actually give a rats ass and do something about it.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
However, it may be a huge double-barreled shot at their feet. Here's why: Ripping MP3s is already mainstream. When they ship these crippled CDs, and the word gets out that you can't rip them or you have to go through some user-hostile WMA download every time you want to add tunes to your jukebox, sales will drop.
And, as others have noted here, indie bands won't behave this way (why should they? MP3 trading will help spread the word about their tunes). So they will get a sales boost from users who may not give a shit about IP and fair use but certainly care about ease of use.
Don't believe me? Look at the commercial failure of Sony's Music Clip. It fell flat on its face because customers wanted the standard (MP3) not something else that required many extra steps to use it.
So, as for the music industry: fuck 'em. If they want to sell useless drink coasters for $15, and wonder where a big segment the buyers went, let them take the financial hit. Just don't invest in any of the big five, and you won't personally pay the price. Maybe now is the time to short Vivendi-Universal, for example.
sulli
RTFJ.
They just label the cracker who writes the driver a terrorist (Legislation's in the works, don't say it can't happen) and hold him indefinitely without bail. Do a couple of people that way and the rest of the community will shut down so fast it'll make your head spin.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Because they figured that with 650M of data on a CD, that CDs would never by "copyable".
Because when CD-ROM drives came out, hard drives that could hold 650M cost thousands of dollars.
Because when CD-R came out, it cost thousands of dollars, and they figured we'd continue to listen (or dub) music on shiny black boxes with twirly knobs on 'em called "audio equipment", not PCs.
Because when MP3 came out, it took all night to encode a CD-ROM at 128. And most hard drives were only a couple of gigs. And CD-R discs still cost a few bucks apiece, so it was still usually cheaper to buy the album at the store.
Because they never imagined that we'd do anything with MP3s other than burn them to CD-DA. The notion of an MP3 "player" (whether based on CD-R, flash ROM, or hard drive) was just preposterous.
Because when people started trading MP3s, it was over 56K modem links, and it took all night to download an album.
Because SDMI always was, currently is, and will forever be, a WOMBAT - Waste Of Money Brains And Time.
Because they view us as nothing more than sheep for the shearing.
Because open formats like Red Book allowed the sheep to escape the fold.
Because they're damned if they'll ever make that mistake again.
If they want to use 'wma' as a technology, licensed from Microsoft, on their CD's.. more power to them. IT's not up to ME to dictate what format they use for CDs.
What did you think they would use.. mp3?
What I can do... is fight things like the DMCA that make it illegal to rip tracks to my computer for my own convenience.
"I think this is a glimpse of the future," said P.J. McNealy, a digital-entertainment analyst with GartnerG2, a division of research company Gartner. "This meets both sides' needs. It gives people the compressed audio (to play on computers), and it protects copyrights."
It does not meet both sides' needs. People don't want to play compressed audio on their computers, specifically. They want to listen to the music they buy at their convenience, in whatever format that entails. Right now, MP3 is popular, and home computers are a prevalent playback platform. Next year, it might be Ogg Vorbis, or something that hasn't yet been invented. People most decidedly do NOT want to be told how and when they may listen to music they have bought. They just want to listen. The details of formats and platforms are unimportant in the long run. If the music can be coded into any digital format, then it can and will be transcoded into whatever format the listener needs at the moment for his convenience, either by resampling from the analog signal jack, or directly transcoding a digital music file.
Edith Keeler Must Die
I think it's that simple.
I can go to my local music store and pick up a tape for $9.00, but I have to pay $15.00 if I want it on a CD, why?
I can go to the video store and pick up a movie for $13.00, but I have to pay $20-35 for the DVD, why?
So we all know that CD's are better than tapes, but we don't want to pay an extra six bucks to listen to music on a medium that is actually cheaper to produce. So what do we do? We push back. We make MP3's, we share them on Napster, Gnutella, Audio Galaxy, etc. We screw them back.
If you could get that brand new CD you wanted for $9.00 you'd be less likely to rip it from a friend. But you can't. So you push back.
As for the WMP format being used as the "standard" on new CDs, that is just bullshit. MS and the recording industry are just scratching each others backs on this one.
This IS a blatant misuse of Microsofts monopoly. Oh but they will get away w/it. If lawsuits are filed, MS will just release WMP for Mac and everyone will just look the other way. I for one will not. I don't have a problem w/IP, be it Microsoft's or the recording industry's. But I am sick and tired of hearing the word "standard" thrown around as if it actually meant something. Something that only works on Windows is not a "Standard" -- it is a lock-in mechanism. MS wants to lock us into windows.
I think companies should be required to implement new technology on all platforms -- or if they claim that is too difficult -- open up the specs so that it can be implemented by others. That can be a "Standard". And if they refuse to, they should lose their right to bitch and moan when someone circumvents it.
Your analogy is not quite correct. Of course I need a CD player, but there is no specification of who I must buy that CD player from. Pick your vendor ... build your own if you want and have the means.
...
To play WMA files, I must be using M$ Windows, or at least an M$ licensed WMA player (are there any WMA players for other platforms?). We have here a 3rd party (the music makers) dictating which computer OS I must use. We have a 3rd party that is dictating which software vendor I must deal with. _That_ is the problem.
My car dealer does not stipulate which mechanic I must got to, my barber does not stipulate which shampoo I must use, my dentist (ignoring the ORAL-B/Crest monopoly) does not dictate which toothpaste or toothbrush I must use, and my herbalist does not specify where I must buy my weed
I don't use illegal MP3s, or go beyond my 'fair use' rights, but preventing me from exercising my fair use rights via such controls is in direct contrevention of copyright laws.
Go ahead and introduce copyright protection mechanisms, but those controls must function entirely within the realm of copyright law, and they must be cross platform and based on open standards that everyone has free and unrestricted access to.
- Mark
Ancient Budo Master once told me: "All your bruises are belong to us."
I don't even know what to say about all of this. I am so annoyed at the fact that the RIAA seems to think that this is a Good Thing.
It isn't a Good Thing, it is a Bad Thing (obviously).
They have eliminated the free use clause here by saying you can only do it on MS computers. This is a violation of my right as a consumer to do what the fuck I wish w/a product.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. Do NOT take away my rights as a consumer to do w/a product as I please. I bought the CD, I am allowed to make backup copies, resell it, or use it as a frisbee.
Who the fuck is the RIAA to decide that the Free Use clause is a bunch of shit? Who the fuck are they to decide that MS is the one that is going to have exclusive rights to distribute music on the computer? And who the fuck isn't going to buy this shit when it comes out?
In the past several weeks we have seen plenty of proprietary systems for blocking people from copying demo CDs. We get pissed about it but it is their right to block that (as they are promos). No one really cared b/c it was a small group of companies, poor choices of music, etc. Now they want to do this to all of us.
I seriously think that we are going to get screwed over here. If you are going to want music, you aren't going to have a choice but to buy this crap .
I am glad I listen to music that is freely distributable but I do enjoy some music that isn't. I rarely buy CDs now b/c of the insanely high cost but I am seriously reconsidering not buying them at all.
Fuck the RIAA, fuck MS, and fuck whoever is going to let this happen.
-end of rant-
For those that do mind the longer rip - what they're doing is ineffective. Basically, they're stepping on the heads of people (like myself) who buy CDs and rip them for their own use.
Here's the brilliant bit - if I expect that I can't buy CDs and store the tunes on my home and work boxen without much work, my path of least resistance becomes to just start downloading tunes instead.