EU May Block Music Labels' Download Sites

csmiller writes: "The BBC is reporting that the EU is (according to The Sunday Times) considering blocking music-labels setting up their own download sites, as 'Some politicians fear that the two services, Pressplay and MusicNet, would be anti-competitive and unfairly dominate the market.'" I wonder when the idea of a Neighborhood Cache will catch on -- it looks like large-scale digital trading will always be subject to this kind of interference.

Comments

Good

[Coolmoe]

I think the RIAA should be banned from online distribution anyway. This should be handled like long distance and the phone company. Banned from online distrubution as long as thier "CD based monopoly" still exists. They need to be forced to give the littlde guy a break. Besides they have way more market share then whould be allowable in almost any other market. I say good for the EU for having balls!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I say good for the EU for having balls!

Half of the EU parliament are female. Try to avoid being sexist by modifying your statement to say "I say good for the EU for having balls and vaginas!"

Re:Good

[muffen]

I totally Agree.

I used to think that the US was very much ahead when it came to free markets. When the Microsoft trial started, I was really happy that the US government was doing something about the monopoly.

However, lately, it seems like the US government are those who, indirectly, are creating monopoly situations for companies.

My biggest dream right now is that everyone in the world will refuse to buy a single CD for one week. That should put the RIAA back on the ground.

Re:Good

[Jaysyn]

Welcome to the Good Ol' Boy club (tm). Bush may not have vested intrest in Big Companies, but he still has plenty of friends there.

Jaysyn

Re:Good

[interiot]

The first great monopoly, Standard Oil Company, came about largely because they got the railroad companies to raise the transportation rates for their competitors.

Fast forward to today, and it's worse. Now the producers OWN the distribution channels, not just pay them off.

Re:Good

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

However, lately, it seems like the US government are those who, indirectly, are creating monopoly situations for companies.

Sadly, this isn't a matter of "lately" - this has been the case since the late 1800's, as I recall.

Don't forget that a "corporation" is a government-created entity, granted rights and powers by government, who at least ORIGINALLY made them stick to their corporate charters. I don't think I've ever heard of any corporation having its charter revoked even for the most egregious acts, at least not in the last century or so...

Re:Good

[tedsvmax]

I also agree, Im tired of all the abuse the consumer is experiencing due to overpriced and overpayed companies.
You cant beat the real sound of an orriginal cd but I cant afford to buy all the tunes I enjoy.
Sharing tunes is next to the days I sat and recorded videos, or taped tunes off the radio.
Whats the difference? None as far as im concerned. The companies should give us all some respect and just leave it alone. They arent loosing anything because more people are buying due to a larger population. Not everyone is getting their music online.
I still like buying orriginal cd's but cant afford them anymore.

The Napster monopoly

[standards]

If the labels' current effort is blocked by the EU, the labels will simply shift their plan so it becomes acceptable to the EU. This will likely include the creation of two or three other "independent" on-line distribution companies.

Three or four sights will be found to be acceptable to the EU.

Of course, these other companies won't really be all that independent - they'll either be so weak that they'll be out of business in a short period of time, or they will have such strong ties to the major companies that they'll be non-competetive.

Either way, the labels successfully killed Napster, and now they want to take over with a similarly illegal scheme. The EU might not like it, but it'll be hard to stop.

Interference ? I think not.

[MosesJones]

Hardly interference. The point here is that while now there are large numbers of record stores which make a good living selling CDs, Records et al from a large number of labels this would produce a few sites totally tied to a specific label. Most record shops have a few albums from indie or small labels and it is that range of selection that is in danger. The aim here is quite clear... dominate the digital market place, don't allow others to sell your albums digitally and so the equivalent of the high street store that has the breadth of records is never allowed to exist as they can't exist selling _only_ indie records.

Fairplay to the EU for this one I say. It isn't interfering its making sure that the big boys don't create a digital monopoly that squeezes the minor players out.

Hopefully this will be the start of a number of such actions including Hailstorm, Passport et al from the boys in Redmond. This is pro-consumer and anti-big-business.

Fairplay I say.

Re:Interference ? I think not.

[MartinG]

How can you say this is not interference when clearly it obviously is?

That doesn't make it good or bad, but it is interference.

In this case, IMO it is interference thats only ended up being needed because of earlier interference by government in the first place that allowed such powerful organisations to form. ie, the ridiculous rights granted to copyright holders (or from another perspective, removed from everyone else) by the state.

If that hadn't happened and copyright terms are were shorter there would be a more competitive market and this counter-interference would be unneccessary.

The length that copyright should apply for is debatable, but right now it is much too long. I would say that if power tends to become concentrated among a small minority of powerful companies then the time is too long. On the other hand, if it becomed anarchic with no artists able to make a living then it is too short. Is should be adjusted and played about with until the correct balance is found. Jobs and companies will be lost (as well as new ones created) in doing that which is why no government will dare, but that is the cost of drastically improving the situation for absolutely everyone else in society.

Re:Interference ? I think not.

[eMago]

The EU has always been very "careful" with monopolies. It's not just about the digital market but about the whole market.
There exist strong laws in the EU in this area
(anti-cartel, anti-monopoly). Several
takeovers and merges in the last years have either been forbidden or have only been allowed
under some strict "sanctions". So this case is nothing special in the EU because the laws are more strict there than in the US.

Re:Interference ? I think not.

[ronmon]

You're right on the money here. While the US DoJ is pussyfooting around with M$, the EU is putting some pressure on them in regards to bundling. The Register has had some good articles on this lately, though their site is down at the moment. The analogy is clear in that the major label owned conduits using proprietary content formats restrict not just what you can get, but from whom you get it. It's a blatant attempt to cut the small business owner out of the picture.

It's been the case for a long time now that US laws set the standards and other countries tend to follow suit (drug laws are a good example), but maybe this trend will change. Leadership with some thought toward the consumer, specifically in regard to the right of choice, instead of the deep pocked corporations is good to see.

Re:Interference ? I think not.

[warpeightbot]

Most record shops have a few albums from indie or small labels and it is that range of selection that is in danger. The aim here is quite clear... dominate the digital market place, don't allow others to sell your albums digitally and so the equivalent of the high street store that has the breadth of records is never allowed to exist as they can't exist selling _only_ indie records.

Not true.

Most music stores have a jobber that comes in and fills the racks with RIAA-produced schlock. Then there are the little mom-and-pop establishments that carry indie media... and usually trade in used RIAA produce as well. These will survive quite handily...

Furthermore, the indie bands usually have their own websites, where a selection of their stuff is available for download and where they often list the stores that carry their physical media... which, amazingly enough, indie fans generally run out and buy when they find something they like. And as has been said elsewhere in the thread, if you can't find something in your favorite indie store, google it, and find out where it is. That is, if your band's website isn't selling them on their website alreddie...

Indie music is not in any danger; matter of fact, more and more bands are figuring out that it does NOT help to get into the racket, and staying out of it. The trufans know where to go to get their fix, and are providing more than enough financial support for the bands to make ends meet...

While I think it's good that RIAA is getting its comeuppance, and think all such monopolies should, the indies are doing just fine, thank you very much.

Re:Interference ? I think not.

[JonnyCalcutta]

It's been the case for a long time now that US laws set the standards and other countries tend to follow suit (drug laws are a good example)

Is this an example you're proud of?

Re:Interference ? I think not.

[ronmon]

Is this an example you're proud of?

Hell no, this is the kind of crap that needs to stop.

-1 Halfwitted

[Mike Connell]

> it looks like large-scale digital trading will always be subject to this kind of interference.

Oh yeah - if "large-scale digital trading" is synonymous with "having a bloody cartel"

There is a whole new world on the horizon - music over the net - where we have the possibility of a lot of new players, new ideas, exciting new possibilities - space for real innovation. Or we can have the same old traditional monoliths controlling it. Yippee.

"Interference"? Spare me...

Guess they mean local servers and services?

[owlet]

They (MusicNet) could just run the servers in the US and accept credit cards. Granted the service might be slower, but I'm pretty happy with the services that aren't in Europe. (I live in Finland.)

Of course setting up a full local service using local currency with local banks with a help desk speaking my native language might have a better chance of being successful.

Re:Guess they mean local servers and services?

[shepd]

>They (MusicNet) could just run the servers in the US and accept credit cards.

While this is certainly possible, violating EU law would mean that the moment an RIAA representative stepped on any bit of EU soil they'd be arrested/tried/convicted for their offense. The EU could even attempt to have RIAA officials extradited from the US for trials for their crimes. Considering countries from the EU have willingly helped the US try people in America for DMCA violations, I think an exchange like that is only par for the course.

That is unless their site denied sales to you if your CC# was from an EU country.

Re:Guess they mean local servers and services?

[rlowe69]

They (MusicNet) could just run the servers in the US and accept credit cards. Granted the service might be slower, but I'm pretty happy with the services that aren't in Europe.

I think given the current connectivity and reliability of the Internet, this is a moot point. Like you said, you're happy with non-local (national) services. In fact, when I was in France this past summer, many sites in North America were faster than French sites presumably because they use better technology and thus have greater capacity, even across the Atlantic.

I think what the EU is proposing is a ban on sites outside and inside of the EU. Sites outside of the EU will be filtered out at ISPs by new legislation created by the EU and sites inside the EU will be forbidden to exist. Also, hardware technology needed to play the new 'digitally secure' music will be forbidden from the EU. Done. Some people may circumvent this, but not enough for the EU to worry.

Personally, I think the whole digital music thing is laughable. I'd like to go back to the early 1980's and listen in on meetings with tech guys saying "There's no way people will be able to store whole albums on their hard drives! We don't need to protect the data." ... talk about letting the cat out of the bag.

... and now the RIAA is running around trying to bag the cat, dye it's hair and let it free again - all by themselves. Good luck!

Monopolies suck

[serps]

Good on the EU for this action. As history attests (Standard Oil, Bell, de Beers et c.) cartels and monopolies screw over their customers in the interest of continued profits. Not always tremendous profits, but a steady, large supply of money. What I can't work out is why any cartel whose monopoly depends on controlling the distribution channel can hope to retain control in the zero-cost-of-entry distribution network that is the Internet. Maybe it's like the de Beers diamond consortium: it's branding over substance (in de Beers' case: the whole 'diamonds are forever' spiel; in the RIAA's case: get your legal MP3s here, or we'll wipe your hard drive :)

Why have multiple, exclusive services?

[pyramid termite]

It's just like having to buy my Sony CDs from Camelot only and my Universal CDs from Sam Goody only. It doesn't make any sense. It's not what the customers want - they want to be able to subscribe to one service, among several choices, and pay to access mp3s from all companies, preferrably paying a flat fee, and certainly not paying CD prices, because after all, an mp3 isn't as good as a CD. They'd also like to be able to choose individual songs to buy, not have to buy 1 song they want and 10 dogs they don't. What gives the music industry the idea they can continue to ignore their market and their customers without hurting the bottom line? Maybe that's why CD sales are dropping.

Re:Why have multiple, exclusive services?

[rocjoe]

This is it, most of the new stuff I've heard is either Bubblegum Pop or Poser Trash, there is nothing out there that really makes me want to go out and buy a CD anyway. MP3s are just a scapegoat. Culture has been in the dumps since we invented disco. Only the changing music formats has masked this for so long!

Re:Why have multiple, exclusive services?

[Brolly]

You wanna know what people want? FREE MP3s. I'm at college and I guarantee none of my friends here will spend one dime to buy an mp3 online. The efforts to find new sources of mp3s when napster went down and when Audiogalaxy finally started blocking songs in a way where you couldn't still get them are enough to convince me that we would go back to searching ftps if we had to. I hate to sound trollish, but people are cheap, and once you've sampled getting whatever music you want for free, the idea of going back to actually *gasp* paying for it does not sit too well.

Re:Why have multiple, exclusive services?

[robzster1977]

I agree totally. If you can't think of it this way, try to think of it as having to pay for your net access, then getting it free, then having to pay again. This happened to me.. it's not good.

Re:Why have multiple, exclusive services?

[maxpublic]

People aren't cheap; you and your friends are cheap. There's a difference.

Trying to extrapolate the behavior of a bunch of college boys to the world as a whole is ridiculous. Someday you, too, will graduate (with luck) and then you'll no longer be an irresponsible little college brat who has the temerity to apply the behavior of himself and his friends to the entire world population.

Most of us - responsible working stiffs - actually buy cds of downloaded mp3s that we like. Perhaps because we want better sound quality, or think the artists should get some small amount of money for their efforts, or just because we aren't blowing all of our cash on drunkfests and ski trips. Whichever sounds most reasonable.

Max

Re:Why have multiple, exclusive services?

[Brolly]

Perhaps we are cheap, but our age group (including those a bit older and those a bit younger) are the driving force behind popular music these days. We buy the most cds, movies, and video games. We are the ones that are targeted by the music industry. AND, at the same time, we're the ones taking advantage of free mp3s the most as well. Quite frankly the fact, that my dad, who perhaps buys 1 cd a year at most, doesn't get music for free, is not as important as the millions of kids downloading entire albums. Oh, and thanks for all the personal attacks, were they really necessary to get your point across?

Re:Why have multiple, exclusive services?

[maxpublic]

Your age group *isn't* the driving force behind popular music; college kids don't have the necessary disposable income and they're more likely to steal their music online than to buy it.

The driving force behind popular music is the *high school* crowd, who get their disposable income straight from their parents. These are the people being targeted, not you. They're the new sheep; you're the already-bought-and-paid-for sheep and no one in the RIAA gives a rats ass what you think. The RIAA no more cares about your music preferences than it does mine.

College students aren't nearly as important as they think they are.

And yeah, the personal attack was warranted. You blithely assume that because you and your friends do something, that 'everyone' does that thing - or at least everyone that counts. Sheer arrogance.

In posting as in cutting wood, measure twice and cut once.

Max

Re:Why have multiple, exclusive services?

[Brolly]

Did you even bother to *READ* my post? I said our age group INCLUDING those a little older and younger. Unless you were 30 years old when you went to college, a little bit younger than college age is high school age. And by the way, I did happen to be in high school two years ago, and believe it or not, they pirate mp3s too.

Re:Why have multiple, exclusive services?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it, but these "college boys" are in line with what everyone else really thinks. I'm tired of seeing countless posts where people say "oh yeah I'd be willing to pay if it made sense bla bla bla" You know what? We're ALL cheap. You people that would actually pay are in the minority. It's the truth. Why don't we all just admit it? We all want free software, free music, and of course...free sex ;) Please, let's all be honest. I realize there are people out there who think differently, but I honestly believe that the cheapos are in the majority (and yes that includes me). Regardless of what everyone likes to post.

Re:Why have multiple, exclusive services?

[maxpublic]

I can easily refute your belief. Last year millions of mp3s were downloaded; and yet cd sales *increased* by 5% overall. Some preliminary studies linked mp3 downloads to purchases (people heard something they otherwise wouldn't have noticed, liked it, decided they wanted a cd-quality copy rather than an mp3). I did this (sampled, then bought), as did just about everyone else I know.

If the mp3 were the same quality as a straight cd track there might not be an incentive to buy. But the mp3 isn't that good so the incentive to purchase a better product exists.

Knee-jerk extrapolations of personal or clique behavior to the entire U.S. population is not only damned silly but in this case not borne out by the available evidence. It's my suspicion that the people who shout the loudest "everyone does this" or "everyone would do this if they had the balls" are those with the largest pirate collections of mp3s, trying to justify their behavior by spreading the (potential) blame.

I personally don't have a big problem with people pirating mp3s so long as they admit to it ("yep, I steal") and stop trying to avoid responsibility. All this "everyone does it" or "everyone would do it" crap is so Boomerish in its attempt to avoid blame it makes my stomache roll.

Max

Metashops...

[Kragg]

This kind of phenomenon is not uncommon already - if you want to buy a rare book, then chances are amazon has it. If not, you google it and find that small site that stocks it.

All that will happen is that some enterprising guy will set up a meta-shop where you go and enter whatever criteria you like (name, genre etc), and it'll go off and search all the record stores out there. If it isn't on X label, it's on Y instead.

The net result is that if people WANT the broader range that isn't provided by the label-specific sites, then someone will come along and fill the void.

Don't panic, people, the internet is more powerful than that; it'll take more than a record label trying to be restrictive to halt the information flood.

Re:Metashops...

[Peter H.S.]

This kind of phenomenon is not uncommon already - if you want to buy a rare book, then chances are amazon has it. If not, you google it and find that small site that stocks it.

According to a friend of mine (who sometimes need some really obscure books), Barnes & Noble is an even better "metashop". He doesn't even bother finding the smaller shops that resells the the books to B&N, since he wants the convinience, and "securety" of a brand name shop he knows.

In my country (Denmark) antique bookshops has setup a common metashop and search engine, and are making a "killing" of it, each book store often getting 1500 - 4000$ extra sales per month.
The point is, that these mostly are extra sales, since people like me, are presented with editions we didn't even knew existed. (eg. Juvenalis satires in translation)

All that will happen is that some enterprising guy will set up a meta-shop where you go and enter whatever criteria you like (name, genre etc), and it'll go off and search all the record stores out there. If it isn't on X label, it's on Y instead.

But those kinds of metashops, depends wholly on the subcontractors willingness to cooperate (send in /make available up to date prices and inventory, in some kind of common data format etc.)
If a site _don't_ want to be part of a some meta-price-compare scheme, or product search, they can easely sabotage any attempt. So don't expect a working, common search portal for "cartel-multi-corp-music" and "Small-music-labels".

And apropos metashops; normal online cd-shops are metashops in a way, since they mostly have lots of different music labels, even indie labels.
But this new Behemoth would probably not "resell" its online music to other shops (why would they), making even more difficult for the consumer to get a varied selection.

The powers that be...

[drnomad]

Although I can support the spirit of the act "stopping cartel/monopolisitic powers", I don't think you'd be able to win that fight by giving "the opposition" the tools to form a monopoly themselves... They -do- have that opportunity when we're restricted in used RIAA content. Doesn't look good as this could mean a trade war over music between two economic powers - USA and Europe, as I don't think that the RIAA will take it... Perhaps I should start listening to local bands then.

who is the congressman?

[Gnaythan1]

"And an American congressman is trying to introduce a law that would give all download services the same access to music regardless of whether they are affiliated with the record company that releases the songs. "

THIS I want to know more about.

Re:who is the congressman?

[sker]

Boucher from VA I believe. Look for MOCA - Music Online Competition Act

Re:who is the congressman?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Eliminating the .sig would free up bandwidth Goto your user info and click the option to exclude sigs :)

Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[Anonymous Coward]

[anticipating this stories comments turning to the usual Slashdot "I Want my MP3" drivel]

When will Slashdot's contributors stop viewing copyright theft as OK. Just because it's not software does not mean that it's OK to champion every attempt to rip off those musicians who don't want their works pirated on the web.

Napster and its progeny are not an expression of free choice - they're simply satisfying the craving amongst the blinkered Slashdot generation in the same way that copying tapes of Spectrum games satisfied saddoes in my distant youth.

By all means complain about dubious anti-copying schemes used on CD's, as these limit fair use of the product. But stop harping on about losing the ability to download hours of pirate music off the web.

Chris

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[liquidsin]

If you'd actually read the article before commenting, you'd have noticed that it's not about piracy - it's about *pay* services for mp3s and making the RIAA play fair. The only thing worse that people who whine about how the man is taking their "right" to theive music is ignorant people who whine just for the sake of it.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[Anonymous Coward]

>When will Slashdot's contributors stop viewing copyright theft as OK

When will you realize it isn't theft unless you deprive someone of the use of the goods?

Its copyright violation, and, to everyone I know (including many people who don't know how to click a mouse) copyright violation ranks right up there with jaywalking and not signalling your turns. Society at large really doesn't regard it as a big deal. Only the government does.

>Just because it's not software does not mean that it's OK to champion every attempt to rip off those musicians who don't want their works pirated on the web.

Seen any people with hordes of MP3s rape and pillage any villages/ships lately? No? Then why call them pirates?

If you don't mean pirate and infact mean copyright violation then it IS ok to use your muscle as a consumer to lower prices, since it has been proven time and time again it works, and again, ask your next door neighbour how he would feel about getting all his favourite games for free. Feel free not to join in our struggle to ensure the rights of the consumer stay as such. You will note how much attitudes about being anti-consumer thru hardware wrenching copyright protection -- many people who owned 1541s can tell you about this and anti-competetive software prices were lowered in the 80's and 90's due to widespread piracy, however.

Being as the artists make close to no profit from CDs I hardly see it as an attempt to rip them off. As far as Audio CDs go put it in perspective: 95% of the "rip-off" is directed at the RIAA, the other 5% is split between many splinter groups, which unfortunately include the musician. The brunt of the attack is still felt by the RIAA, however, no matter how anti-choice you are.

>But stop harping on about losing the ability to download hours of pirate music off the web.

This I agree with. If you mean copyright violating music. I'll just learn to cope with it. Newsgroups are currently 100% primo for anyone still doing this, BTW. Not that I'd be stupid enough to admit to doing anything past downloading headers.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[night_flyer]

when will you realize that promoting one or two so-called good songs on a CD while the rest is crap is false advertising?

Then not being able to return the goods after the deception if discovered is panamount to fraud AND theft?

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[jilles]

The whole point is that copyright law no longer is working. The law was built with the idea of physical copies in mind. Currently there is a whole industry around distributing physical copies of music to clients. With fat internet pipes readily available, zero cost duplication of content is possible (exluding the price of using the connection of course).

The music industry is still charging as if there were a physical copy but that is no longer true.
Instead of argueing about what is theft and what is not I suggest a more pragmatic course of action. Pragmatism starts with realizing that:
- if it can be played it can be recorded and vice versa so recording enables other people recording again.
- if it is available digitally it can be distributed at no cost. With a peer to peer setup this basically means you don't even need an expensive server setup.
- if it can be done, it will be done whether you stamp your feet on the ground loudly or not.

This applies to movies and music. These are not things that are open to debate, these are facts of life. Once you realize that, you also realize that the cd producing industry as we know it today is doomed to die eventually. The factories that create the machines to create the cds are no longer necessary, the factories that create the cases for the cds are no longer necessary, the shops that sell the cds are no longer necessary, etc.

The things that are necessary are artists to create content and supporting staff and equipment to help them record the content and optionally marketing people to market the content. Most artists consider albums to be marketing material for their live shows. Generally they don't make a lot of money from these cds since most of the profits go to the record industry. Of the 20$ you pay for a cd, only a fraction of that actually ends up in the artist's wallet Really only the very big artists can make a living out of cd sales.

So how can you make money of content creation? We have already established that the distribution has no meaningful cost associated with it so realistically it is the content creation that should generate the revenue and not the distribution.

Suggestions:
- Live performances. People love live performances and are generally willing to pay for it.
- Commercial activities. If you're famous, you can help promote stuff for money. You could for instance get a sponsor. Many sports people for instance wear clothes from their sponsor and get paid for it.
- Video clips are broadcasted on tv channels who make money by receiving revenue from advertisements.

These are only a few examples. All of these activities actually benefit from free distribution of content. And more importantly, for many artists these are already the primary source of income.

Reality is that I have a /mp3 directory which is huge and it will be a long time before I rm -rf it.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[Anonymous Coward]

if it can be played it can be recorded and vice versa so recording enables other people recording again ... if it can be done, it will be done whether you stamp your feet on the ground loudly or not.

Bogus argument. Just because I have a high quality colour printing press and can therefore forge money, does that make it right just because I decide *de facto* that it is? Of course it doesn't, and there are tough laws to prevent me doing so. The same with pinching music - personally I was slightly amused when I found Napster listing half a dozen people offering MP3's of stuff I recorded - but I wouldn't be so amused if music generated my sole form of income.

Most artists consider albums to be marketing material for their live shows

Bull. Most smaller artists make most of their income from advances for recordings. Only bigger artists can bring in big bucks from touring - just think of the cost of travel, crew and equipment. When you're playing moderate sized venues, it's a struggle to claw back some profit from merchandise.

... it is the content creation that should generate the revenue and not the distribution

And if you've no money coming in from record sales, then how are you going to buy equipment and studio time? Or even afford to eat? Naw, you just want to justify your greedy hording of MP3's.

Your laughable "suggestions" - live dates, promotional appearances and video clips - are only viable for the Michael Jackson and Madonnas of this world. Do you seriously think people are going to chuck money at smaller artists for promotional stuff and showing cli[ps on MTV? Most bands (or more accurately their labels) have to expend big money and effort to get airtime.

Chris

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[javilon]

"This applies to movies and music."

And what about software?

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[jilles]

Software requires an exact digital copy and duplication is somewhat more complex due to that. An encoded mp3 you can record by playing it and holding a microphone next to the speaker. Similarly you can record a movie. Admittedly the quality will suck but there are ways of improving on quality by using e.g. better equipment.

You can't do this with software. That doesn't mean pirating software is impossible. It is just a bit harder.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[jilles]

It's not about right and wrong. What you find wrong (i.e. copying & distributing music presumably) is simply a technical reality, deal with it and get over it. Money is not protected by copyright but by additional laws which basically make it criminal to print your own money so that's a bogus argument on your side.

"And if you've no money coming in from record sales, then how are you going to buy equipment and studio time? Or even afford to eat? Naw, you just want to justify your greedy hording of MP3's"

Well I guess you could get out and get a job or something. Sorry, it's a tough world. All I'm saying is that it no longer makes sense to create and distribute physical copies of music since it can all be done using networks at virtually no cost. If your business model is selling plastic discs with music on them you obviously have a revenue problem. Basically all techniques for preventing illegal downloads of music (and movies) appear to be fundamentally flawed (see my previous post) so you can't replace your obsolete business model by simply asking money for the downloads (again sorry, there's no moral judgement here just a technical argument).

My earlier suggestions will certainly not replace all of the lost revenue. It just serves as an example of how you can still make money after the collapse of the recording industry. And after all, creativity does not require revenue at all. Some people just love to make good music because it pleases them. Basically aside from the past 75 years, throughout history there was no way to distribute copies of music. Still people like Mozart and Beethoven delivered some very fine music so it is not the end of the world.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[jswitte]

It seems to me the main reason the major player in the recording industry exist anymore is to provide advances - which they then back-end out of the artists' royalties (though I have no hard proof, only Courtney Love's manifesto, and big-name artists may be able to negotiate this).

If artists could find ways to get advances without having to go through a record company, this would be a real alternative to the current system. One band I read about did this by pre-selling albums for a year, did their own recording, then paid a big distributor like BMG to do just that - distribute - and only that. They have their copyrights, can put their music anywhere they want, and I assume get a bigger portion of the purchase price of their CDs (though the CDs themselves probably still cost a nutrageous amount, maybe even more as BMG probably doesn't particularly want to "promote" them against their own contract-bound artsists.).

The other day on the local country radio station, the DJ person was commenting that the group Lone Star is now getting more good songs than they could ever record. Whatever you think about country, Lone Star as a group has achieved a certain level of success, and I am personally appalled that a group that achieves that level of success and I presume a certain level of financial success as well, doesn't turn around, figure out a way to raise their own advance, and go it alone, without a record contract. I thought the same thing when I read that Whitney Huston had signed a $50 million dollar, 5-album contract. Why, oh why, doesn't she just tell the big-five to stuff it? Of course, she has the clout to negotiate a probably unheard-of-for-a-small-band 25% royalty rate.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[mimbleton]

"Still people like Mozart and Beethoven delivered some very fine music so it is not the end of the world."

Yes, they did to a few who could afford to listen to it.
Please, don't even bring that up.
CD industry in one form or another is here to stay ( possibly as a paid distribution online etc..)

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[CompKid]

At Steam Powered Studio I am attempting to provide the recording and production services to the artists for free, relying on listener patronage to keep me fed. The math looks do-able. I figure 6K patrons at $10 a year as a goal, for which said patrons could count on at least 50 songs (probably more) in digital form.

The artists will still be looking for income, but this will give them a "product" to work with, whether it's simply used for promotion, pressed (at their expense) to sell at gigs, or tied into some online subscription service which pays for plays.

There are many levels to play this game- it does not need to be an all or nothing proposition for the artist like it is now.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[Anonymous Coward]

Its copyright violation, and, to everyone I know (including many people who don't know how to click a mouse) copyright violation ranks right up there with jaywalking and not signalling your turns. Society at large really doesn't regard it as a big deal. Only the government does.

I think in the digital world it's not regarded as a big deal. Many of those who might care about it just don't understand concepts like MP3 files and sharing networks. Those who understand the technical concepts, don't often understand the legal implications of them.

In a real world sense it can be regarded as a big deal; when someone is busted for selling, making or distributing pirated CDs (music or software) it gets more attention.

Seen any people with hordes of MP3s rape and pillage any villages/ships lately? No? Then why call them pirates?

Why call anyone pirates (or are we talking about Vikings here?), software pirates don't really wear eyepatches, bandanas and stripy shirts and pants either. The main difference here is between whether it's illegal copying of the Microsoft Word program, or a Microsoft Word document. Since both involve the same form of digital duplication, it's reasonable to use the term providing we're not in a nitpicky legal every-subtle-difference-of-meaning-matters situation.

If you don't mean pirate and infact mean copyright violation then it IS ok to use your muscle as a consumer to lower prices, since it has been proven time and time again it works,

Lower prices come from proper competition and demanding them from the legitimate sales channels; indulging in illegal activities isn't going to impress anyone. As long as sites like Napster are doing anything illegal, it's quicker and more profitable for the industry to shut them down than to try competing with them.

and again, ask your next door neighbour how he would feel about getting all his favourite games for free.

What about cable? If the company offered free cable, I'm sure we'd all love it. If someone walked up to you and offered it, you'd wonder what the catch was, and how legal it was. That issue is blurred here because of the perceived anonymity of the internet.

Being as the artists make close to no profit from CDs I hardly see it as an attempt to rip them off. As far as Audio CDs go put it in perspective: 95% of the "rip-off" is directed at the RIAA, the other 5% is split between many splinter groups, which unfortunately include the musician.

It's not an attempt to rip off the artist, but that is one of the side effects. I don't know if the RIAA itself feels the ripoff, or the member companies do so individually. The member companies are the ones who want to recoup the costs of producing the album through their sales, as well as supporting less profitable albums and of course making a profit. In some cases the artist may in their contract need to pay back that cost with the intake, so copyright violation leaves them even worse off in that case.

Pirating music (okay, copyright violating music) is not a protest unless you make it one at the same time; in itself it does nothing. If you want free music, download it. If you actually want to send a message, do something significant to register a protest. And if you actually want to make a difference, stay within the law, find legal issues on which the industry can be called up (as happened here), work to implement laws that are fair to everyone (not just the industry, or the cheap downloaders), and/or develop a new system that provides LEGAL competition to the big players and hence forces their prices down.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[sllort]

CD industry in one form or another is here to stay

Does anyone know if it is possible for the mentally retarded people who post to Slashdot to get special accounts? We could call them "handicapped accounts", and put a special blue wheelchair icon next to each post. Also, in user options, we check "filter retarded posts", and not have to read shit like this.

Anyway, mimbleton, for the record: the CD industry is NOT here to stay. 20,000 years from now, not a single CD will exist. Try running these ideas past your mommy next time.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[mimbleton]

So is fucking car industry but only lunatics like you are running around claiming that it would be foolish to invest into auto industry.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how you would "invest into auto industry". i'm not sure what is has to do with the fact that you were wrong about whether or not CD's will die out (they will die out).

Why would you bother trying to defend yourself with a straw man like this?

That gentle, whispering sound is the noise that half a million readers make when they snicker at you.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[hyphz]

> It just serves as an example of how you can
> still make money after the collapse of the
> recording industry. And after all, creativity
> does not require revenue at all.

No. You do, however, need to make money to EAT while you're writing music. So get a job? Well, yes, you can do that, but then you've got a lot less time to write music, so you're going to write less music or worse music.

This, of course, is a big clanger the record industry makes: by glamorising its stars, it makes people think "well, writing music isn't work, so why do we need to guarantee them money for it?".

If the industries want people to stop copying simply because it's wrong to do so, they'll have to make musicians look like people again. (But, as I mentioned elsewhere, they don't, because as long as a large number of people will copy whatever it is possible to copy, companies can use controlled distribution of the copy prevention technologies as a further barrier to new music publishers.)

> Some people just love to make good music
> because it pleases them. Basically aside from
> the past 75 years, throughout history there was
> no way to distribute copies of music.

Yes, they made money from live performances because there was NO ALTERNATIVE if you wanted to hear the music. (And there was no piracy.)
To anyone who says musicians should make their money from live performances - how many concerts/gigs have you been to recently?

> Still people like Mozart and Beethoven
> delivered some very fine music so it is not the
> end of the world.

Uhm, classical musicians not only got paid for performances, they got sponsored _to write pieces to perform_. Ok, there's some exceptions for the classical prodigies (stuff Mozart wrote at age under 10, Faure handing in the Cantique De Jean Racine as his composition homework at a school, etc.), but even then they were being supported.
Unless you were a noble or a king, you probably wouldn't have heard their original performances.

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[mimbleton]

"This will save you a great deal of humiliation, and the rest of us a great deal of anguish. "

Feel free to stop responding and save yourself " a great deal of anguish."

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohh... very clever. Cunt. I would like to see you die. I'm sure Jon Katz would like your anus...

Re:Yawn - another Slasdot pro-piracy story

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, but why?

The Politicians May Have A Point Here

[Self Bias Resistor]

The big reason why the politicians are trying to block the major record labels from setting up their music download services is that the major players may be anti-competitive (that would never happen in the software industry!) and unfairly dominate the market. Before we decide to post reactionary "EU sucks" posts en masse, we have to consider that they may actually have a point.

One of the fundamental aspects of the major players' (ie. AOL Time Warner, Vivendi Universal, Bertelsmann, Sony etc) control over the music industry is that of control of distribution. The big labels have managed to buy up/price out everyone else in the market over time until they become the majority providers in the market. They have so much money behind them that it's hard for the indie players to compete if they don't have multi million-dollar advertising budgets and large amounts of capital to professionally record and produce hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of CDs, although prices for both are dropping. You want your CD to reach a large enough audience for it to go gold or platinum? Do it through us. Sure you can refuse to, but it's not like you can compete with us. One of the reasons the RIAA decided to shut Napster down was not for mass copyright infringement (the Audio Home Recording Act allowed people to copy CDs to tape for years), it was for the loss of control over the distribution of their product.

The Internet may, if we're not careful, merely provide the big labels with another avenue of control over their product. We may see a repeat of past history where a couple of key players (both of which seem to be merely extensions of the major recording labels) grow and grow until they become so big they can have the kind of control over the digital market that they have over the physical market right now. This means high prices, low quality of service and even less money going towards the artist. They can control access that small players have to the product (ie. the music) by charging high prices for access to their copyrighted product. This is similar to Telstra being able to price out competitors by charging high prices for access to its telecommunications network (although the Australian Competition and Consumers Commission (ACCC) is trying to put a stop to that, just like they did with DVDs). Although an American congressman is trying to introduce a law that gives all download services the same access to music regardless of whether they are affiliated with the record company that sells the songs, which (for once) actually makes a lot of sense since it removes at least one measure through which the major players can unfairly control the market. This complaint by the politicians of the EU may actually be a good thing for all of us who download digital music.

Re:The Politicians May Have A Point Here

[szquirrel]

The Internet may, if we're not careful, merely provide the big labels with another avenue of control over their product. We may see a repeat of past history where a couple of key players (both of which seem to be merely extensions of the major recording labels) grow and grow until they become so big they can have the kind of control over the digital market that they have over the physical market right now.

You know, I just don't see this happening. Of course bigger labels will always have a monetary edge, but one of the beauties of the Internet is the advantage of lower cost than brick-and-mortar operations. One key point of the major labels' current monopoly is cutting deals with record stores for shelf space. On the Internet this issue goes away when anyone can set up a few servers and jump right into competition with the big boys. Costs aren't nil, but I imagine they pale in comparison to the cost of worldwide physical media distribution.

So I think the EU is probably overreacting to Pressplay and MusicNet. Let the record companies try their outdated muscle tactics in cyberspace. The net has a way of spawning smaller, more nimble services to compete with ones that have gotten too big and bloated.

Re:The Politicians May Have A Point Here

[Lonath]

Before we decide to post reactionary "EU sucks" posts en masse, we have to consider that they may actually have a point.

Methinks someone doesn't read /. much, or at least hasn't been assimilated into the collective fully...:)

Re:The Politicians May Have A Point Here

[No One]

Nah, that just means he's part of the commie pinko collective instead of the rabid frothing libertarian collective.

Hot water ?

[CaptainZapp]

They (the major labels) might be in rather hot water, if they circumvent such a decision, by distributing the content from, say, Sealand.

All majors either have major subsidiaries in Europe, or are European in the fisrst place.

The EU is quite powerfull in terms of monopolies (I think rightfully so). Ask companies like Volkswagen, Mercedes or Tetra Pack. They where all fined dozens of millions for abusing monopoly powers.

I don't think, that Mario Monti would consider this to be a funny prank if major companies just stick out their tongue on EU laws.

Re:Hot water ?

[JonnyCalcutta]

I think you'll find that only one of the majors is actually American. BMG and EMI are European, Vivendi Universal is European (although Universal was American at one point, I guess), Sony is Japanese and you're left with AOL Time Warner as the only American owned record company (majors that is).
There's irony in there somewhere.

Re:Hot water ?

[CaptainZapp]

There's irony in there somewhere.

Sure have to agree with that.

However, the cartel comission is quite blind when it gets to nationality. Companies that where fined where all European. You could argue about Daimler-Chrysler, but their fine is not yet final.

The American merger they prevented was GE with Honeywell. This, because that would have a major impact on aircraft turbines.

Although such measures should be handled very carefully, and never as a market protective measure, it's nice to see that it's more difficult to buy EU politicians. Albeit they are lobbied of course.

Segregation

[Vegan Pagan]

It's good that the EU is fighting an oligopoly, but might this lead to music regions (segregation), as we already have with movies and video games? I hope that the internet can eliminate borders and let content flow everywhere, as it did with Napster.

+2 Gay

[TomV]

It is a very 1980s point of view

1890's, surely?

TomV

I love this line

[A_Non_Moose]

These record companies do not throw money into black holes and the commission fears that if they come together, it could make them into a cartel and make it virtually impossible for a rival model to compete" --emphasis mine

Excuse me? What do you mean *could*?
How bloody stupid can one be...a rival model (Napster, et al) did try to compete... they got E3'd (embraced, extended and extinguished).

And, correct me if I am wrong, did a music company just try this? One of the same that was fighting napster?

As one poster so eloquently put it, Napsters popularity was spurred on not by the "desire to steal" but by the ham fisted approach to music and individual freedoms by the "music cartel".

I could not have said it better myself.

Heck, just look at the "uncopyable" cds that are coming out? Individual freedoms (tossing motion) going out the windows. HDTV...whoosh...bye-bye.

Oh, never mind the law says you have the right to do this, but the moment you excercise that right you are running afowl of the law? Excuse me?

Did I mis-read the first line of a famous document as "We the corporations, in order to form a more perfect monopoly..."

Moose.

Oh, and next election, if you want sweeping changes...put a single selection first on the ballot that reads "Vote *against* all incumbants".
If it is not there, just look, all incumbants are listed...heh.

Re:I love this line

[hyphz]

You have to watch out with the "individual freedoms" claim.

First of all, the "uncopyable" CDs are a laugh. Unless they're going to start banning the sale of short gold-plated analogue audio cables and digital audio cables. They've tried to stop people playing the CDs on computers, but have ignored the fact that the computer doesn't need to play the CD - it just needs to get at the audio stream somehow.

But second, the simple reason you have to be careful is that if you DO triumph over all these rights protection businesses, then the owners of the content can just Take Their Ball And Go Home. If the DeCSS case had crushed the DMCA early in DVD's life, they just wouldn't have made any more DVDs. Of course, what their big fear is that sooner or later somebody will say We've Got Our Own Ball Now.

Unfortunately in the case of music this is pretty unlikely, as long as they can tie up all methods for making money by distributing music that way. Piracy is a (relatively) minor issue because it'll always happen anyway (and it can help - see below); distribution of free music is a relatively minor issue because you can't do free work forever.

But, try writing a piece of music and finding out how much it'll cost (or even if it'll be possible) for you to distribute it with DRM. Try making a film and find out what it'll involve to get it CSSed. Most of these don't bother with money - they just won't sell to you unless you can prove you can be trusted - by already being a music/film firm. And if you aren't one now, you can never meet that, because you can't become a firm if you can't make money because you have no protection.

And that's another side: as long as people are not pirating because it's technologically impossible for them to do so, rather than because it's wrong, no attitudes will change. The moment something gets released without protection, many will say "What a goof!" and copy it to the skies. This neatly prevents people who can't get the protection from making money, as discussed above, and thus is actually beneficial to the existing companies who can afford protection. Using piracy to wipe competitors off the map is well-established by now, although it's unusual in music (although pretty frequent in IT)

And yet another: people are used to judging the quality of a musician by the fact they got commercially released. Many famous musicians are famous *before* their first song gets released. Moving to a non-publisher model, in which all qualities of music are distributed and you just choose the ones you like, would probably be rejected, because it would require people to actually think about what they were buying.

Why not the Censorship graphic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this more important as a story from government censorship point of view?

Or is that ok if it means you can get your free and illegal MP3's?

Sure, they're big powerful companies, but...

Good for them!

[night_flyer]

Like Microsoft, the Music Industry cant innovate anything on their own and have to steal/litigate the competition out of business...

if it was up to the RIAA, ALL music would sound like N'Stink

Re:Good for them!

[Anonymous Coward]

No truth to this whatsoever.

Re:Good for them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. The RIAA have an absolutely pathetic selection of crappy pop music. I couldn't stand living in a world where all the music performers were stuck in the strictly limited RIAA-genre perpetrated by artists like N'Sync, The Offspring, Beethoven, Jebediah, LFO, Madonna, The Corrs, Madness, Spiderbait, Darude, Mojdo, Nirvana, Bach, Nickelback, They Might Be Giants, Papa Roach, Backstreet Boys, PUSA, Kylie Minogue and The Avalanches. Honestly, their music all just sounds so similar.

They obviously took down Napster because "Pugwall and the Orange Organics", that huge garage rock band, was getting far more popular than their aforementioned style-deprived stars. And the 90%+ trading of those stars' recordings on Napster, that was just because the RIAA stooges wanted to make the music look more popular and did it themselves.

Leave the big record companies alone!

[pubjames]

I am outraged by all these people attacking the recording industry. If it wasn't for them then how would any band succeed? I think the internet is going to do incredible damage to musicians and their ability to earn an honest living.

I have my own pop band and one day we're hoping to be really big. We've sent tapes to some of the big record companies, but so far we've been rejected. Apparently we're not commercial enough, but we'll keep trying.

But guess what - people have been copying and distributing our music on the internet! Some of our so called 'fans' came to one of our concerts and made a recording of some of the songs, then they emailed them to their friends and suddenly we found that thousands of people were distributing our music without our permission! Some 'fans' set up web sites without our permission, with photographs and with virtually all the songs we played at the concert downloadable. We have sent them emails to tell the to take them down, and if they don't then we'll be contacting our lawyers.

Some of these 'fans' had the cheek to email us and ask us when we were next going to play a concert. We've decided that from now on we are not going to publicise our concerts to prevent these types of parasites coming.

I think we're going to really big and popular one day, but of course that can only happen with the help of the big record companies, so lay off them!

Re:Leave the big record companies alone!

[night_flyer]

Hey Dumbass, its your hard work AND the FANS that Make you Succeed, NOT the record companies...

why do I smell another N'Suck clone coming on....

Re:Leave the big record companies alone!

[dhogaza]

Someone has a little trouble comprehending sarcasm, eh?

Re:Leave the big record companies alone!

[statusbar]

Is this a joke? I hope so.

If it isn't, PLEASE research recording contracts. Very very few popular bands make money from record companies. Read how it really works at http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

--jeff

Re:Leave the big record companies alone!

[pkesel]

How did musicians make it before the explosion in recorded media? They worked locally or regionally. Before so much music was available and able to be carried around you had to pay a band for music in your club or at your party. Making it 'Big' meant playing regularly and making a living. Now it means being promoted and marketed, being a media whore.

I still feel the best bands are those that grow to prominence in your community. In my area, the midwest, there are several who are busy night after night, and have been for years. They have a large, loyal following. They get my money at the door and from a shirt or locally-produced album.

And what is it going to do to your crowds if you don't publicise? Sounds like a bonehead move if you ask me.

Your whole post sounds as though you're saying, "Leave my pimp alone!"

US launching anti-competitve investigation also

[call -151]

According to this NY times article an investigation into the possible anti-competive practices of the big music companies on their internet distribution plans for Pressplay and Musicnet is being launched by the antitrust division of the US Dept. of Justice (this link is has same story, no NYT registration required, I think.) No surprise that an investigation is being launched; the news is that subpoenas have been sent out.

Re:US launching anti-competitve investigation also

[Anonymous Coward]

Above says it all.
Physical or online, it is a product, and there must be no restraint of trade, or refusal to licence other wanabe online music exchanges, insofar royalities get paid at the end of the day.
No doubt RIAA will support windows only, and try to quash other platforms, and try to prevent these wantabes from keeping copies on their servers, or try to scam an 'authorization charge' - just like the banks - presently also being investigated for collusion and price fixing on credit card transactions.
EU take note - make sure the royalities will be no more expensive -and that availability of titles are same.
But the brick wall of discrimination comes up too - royalities are lower in 3rd world / low gdp countries - does that mean that India and China will be prevented offerinfg online music downloads. - or that servers in Denmark made to charge +27% VAT tax. The issue of global pricing is not being addressed.

But they wouldnt wan to do that

[Anonymous Coward]

If they just sold online from the states to people in the uk and europe they wouldnt be able to over charge us like they currently do. I can mail order cd from the states (including p&p) for upto 50% less than wha i'd pay in a store over here.

Please...

[TheMMaster]

"Some politicians fear that the two services, Pressplay and MusicNet, would be anti-competitive and unfairly dominate the market."
Please, I know the european (politician) way of thinking (I'm from holland) and the line should read:
"Some politicians fear that the two services, Pressplay and MusicNet, will pay too little taxes"
That's why we are having trouble buying stuff from america or outside the EU for that matter. But MP3's that you download... how can they stop that???
Well... at least that's what I think

CNN Link

[kikta]

CNN is also reporting this as well here. The interesting part is that it is the result of a civil investigative demand. I'd be interested to know who did it. *cough* Napster *cough* ;-)

Re:RIAA = Record Industry Assoc. of ***America***

[Ionized]

um... no.

i can insult people based on anything i want, including religion, gender, ethnicity, and physical or mental handicaps. first amendment, baby.

what i can't do is discriminate against them based on the same factors (eg fire them, not serve them food)

RIAA hacking to put song files on your computer ?

[mat]

Will the RIIA propose an amendment in Europe allowing them to hack into computers in order to upload their copyrigthed files in your hard drive ?

Getting Caught in the Cookie Jar

[pagsz]

But that industry says it will not put a stranglehold on the download sector, and is planning to work together with a new, legitimate Napster that will launch before the end of the year.

Is it me, or does this quote sound like a little kid saying: "No, mommy. I won't eat all the cookies. I'll share some with my little brother."

I mean, come on. How naive do they think people are? Everybody knows that given the chance, they'll monopolize the download sector and crush (through illegal use of the legal process) legitimate services.

I say kudos (the congratulation, not the candy) to the EU for putting a halt to MusicNet and Pressplay until it can be assured that the download sector is a competative one.

This quote brought to you by MoronCo. Industries, the leading source of stupidity on the internet,

CD-R's vs. cd players

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused about the hardware barrier here. Regular CD players seem awful simple compared to CDRWs. If the record companies started to mass produce protected CDs, wouldn't CDR manufactures overcome the protective standard?

Is there any technical or financial reason why the CDR manufactures wouldn't overcome the protections? After all, the CD needs to be playable on all regular CD players...

-plo

Re:CD-R's vs. cd players

[zentigger]

After all, the CD needs to be playable on all regular CD players...

I've seen this issue mentined a few times, and finally got around to looking into it. Nowhere on any "CD" that you buy from the music store is there any mention of the fact that what you are buying is, in fact, a CD-ROM. There is no promise that it will conform to the redbook audio standard, or the orange-book, or any other colour of book you would like or expect it to be for that matter.

This is simply a case of buyer beware! Just because you are buying a little rectangular plastic box with a shiny round disc inside, there is no guarantee (implied or otherwise) that it will be suitable for your intended purposes.

Re:CD-R's vs. cd players

[plo]

ah I see.

But the CD is *supposed* to play on a regular CD player. It seems to me that the recording industry is going to have to get into bed with the hardware manufactures to make sure they conform to their protection standard.

For example, there are regional codes on DVDs and DVD *players* to make sure they're only playable where they were released. Another hardware/software marriage was the 5-byte key to extract DVD info from a disk (later cracked).

So, it appears that regular CD players are going to have to undergo a change in order for any successful protection to work, since the CDRs (or new drivers) could emulate a cd player.

PS: got some info from here.

Re:CD-R's vs. cd players

[ncc74656]

Nowhere on any "CD" that you buy from the music store is there any mention of the fact that what you are buying is, in fact, a CD-ROM. There is no promise that it will conform to the redbook audio standard, or the orange-book, or any other colour of book you would like or expect it to be for that matter.

Umm...actually, if it carries one of the Compact Disc logos, there are some compatibility requirements associated with it. Philips owns those logos and makes them available for use with products (equipment and discs) that comply with the appropriate standards. Here's a quote from page 8 of the Philips Compact Disc Logo Guide, pertaining to the CD-DA (audio CD) logo:

Disc usage: This logo may only be used on discs complying with the CD-DA specification: IEC 60908 and/or the Philips-Sony Compact Disc Digital Audio System Description (also known as the RED Book).

That seems pretty cut-and-dried...if you're violating the Red Book specs to produce a "copy-protected" CD, you can no longer call it a CD (at least you can't use the CD-DA logo on it).

That leaves open the possibility of producing a CD and leaving the logo off of it...there's nothing to stop a label from omitting the CD-DA logo. If they do include the logo on a CD that refuses to play properly, though, they deserve to have their asses sued into oblivion. Not only can you get them for false advertising (calling it an audio CD when it fails to meet specs), but if Philips were so inclined, it could go after them for trademark violation/breach of contract/whatever (there's an agreement you fill out and fax to Philips to get the password to unzip the CD logo collection...been there, done that).

Re:CD-R's vs. cd players

[BlueTurnip]

Is there any technical or financial reason why the CDR manufactures wouldn't overcome the protections?

Not technical or financial, but legal. The DMCA forbids selling devices which circumvent copy protection measures on works in the digital domain, which CDs clearly are.

How to spot satire, a guide for the irony impaired

[pubjames]

Irony is the use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. Satire is a literary work (such as a Slashdot posting;-) in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

Satire can sometimes be difficult to spot, especially for those of low intelligence. However, people who use irony often leave clues that they are not being serious.

If you read a posting on Slashdot that appears to contain extreme views, and statements that are obviously untrue, it could just be a troll. However, be careful! It might be satire! Then you'll look stupid if you respond to it seriously. If you're not sure or are confused, then it's better not to respond.

Maybe i got it maybe not ...

[Aceticon]

Do you mean something like:

You can always find any music you want available online, even if in practice you have to get it as a (physical, delivered to you) CD instead of a binary download?

or

Specialized engines will appear that allow you to find the music you want in electronic format, be it in one of those Big Record Company web stores or in some independent record company/band web site/store?

If we take this last idea further, such sites could actually end up as The Music Portals for most people. After all, they could aggregate information about content (you can find anything from one site), reorganize that information (create all sorts of searches) and add value to it (such as independent reviews instead of the "independent" ones, pointers to (real deal, not company promoted) fan clubs, information about the artist).

Hey, to have a viable business model they could even act as a sales point for Independent Artists (instead of relying on advertising).

This is basically what MP3.com could've turned itself into if it hadn't sold itself out (correct me if i'm wrong)

On the other hand, i bet the Big Record Companies will buy laws (at least in the US) to forbid the embebing in web pages of pointers to their web stores ...

Three words

[Aceticon]

GE-Honeywell merger

Re:RIAA hacking to put song files on your computer

[radja]

nope, they'll have to use echelon, just like boeing...

//rdj

RIAA,DMCA and the World

[Insipid Trunculance]

This is a point i make often and this instance is no other,the Fact is that People Forget
that outside US (include Canada in the tag pls)these anti Common Man things wouldnt simply work.

Stop worrying and in a few years time just like the cryptography thingy these restrictions will go away when they are found harming US interests.

You ask me how??Well here's How:

Imagine a major European/Asian Label which:
1.Gives the artists it contracts Better % of revenue.
2.Provides its customers with no fancy works,just workd CD's etc.
3.Reduce its margins to realistic levels and make CD's cheap enough so that ppl dont mind buying one just for a few songs(i am assuming that some people will continue to pirate--But most wont)

isnt it possible that you US guys will order more and more of your CD's over the net from these guys?

Re:RIAA,DMCA and the World

[Lonath]

isnt it possible that you US guys will order more and more of your CD's over the net from these guys?

But, all the US has to do is block access to unpatriotic sites all over the world. Fortunately, China is working on just such a technology and is probably putting it into its Red Flag Linux distros. So, the US can download it and force all Americans to use this technology to help prop up the domestic music industry.

Re:RIAA,DMCA and the World

[Anonymous Coward]

Restraint of trade?

Don't know how much they can affect US law, but other countries wouldn't going to be too happy about the US enforcing that private purchases must go through local sources. In Australia the ACCC is worried enough that DVD region coding can be used to stop people from importing privately from the US.

I dunno, is there an amendment for freedom of trade/purchase, or was that something else they missed?

Re:Yawn - another Slashdot pro-piracy story

[jeffehobbs]

when will you realize that promoting one or two so-called good songs on a CD while the rest is crap is false advertising?

I think your problem is that you're listening to shitty artists. Miles Davis, for example, was prolific for decades without putting out a single crappy album*. Do your research, expand your horizons (listen to college radio!), find a higher caliber of artist, and don't be so shocked when you only like the 3.5 minute single commercial radio shoves down your throat.

~jeff

* 60's and 70's. The 80's and 90's were not kind to Miles, or music in general.

Copyright theft is not ok at all in my book.

[Kalabajoui]

Then again, I define copyright theft as the current state of laws that unconstitutionaly rob the public domain. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act is a prime example of copyright theft. The DMCA is a theft of my rights to fair use and scientist's rights to do encryption research and reverse engineering. So I'm all for an end to all this thievery and swindling that's been going on lately.

What's a Neighborhood Cache?

[jwinter1]

Never heard that term before. I assume it's sharing over a local network. Can someone clue me in?

You got it

[Kragg]

I meant the latter.

Having such a portal also act as a download point for small independant artists is a great idea - taking the business model of things like WorldPay (who manage online transactions/orders for countless small companies who want an ecommerce front) makes this almost certainly viable, and by linking to mainstream record labels' downloads directly, there's no reason it shouldn't be the first stop.

Thanks for taking the idea one step further ;)

Now lets go get some VC...

Re:You got it

[Teun]

Nice idea, but it still requires the culling of the large monopolies.

If the presently proposed Publisher-owned shops would be allowed there's hardly any chance independends would get a hold of needed merchandise.

Ahem...

[jawtheshark]

That's why we are having trouble buying stuff from america or outside the EU for that matter.

Now, now....I never had trouble buying stuff in the US! I can guarantee you that they know how to tax stuff that comes from the US. Recently I bought a whole batch of T-shirts from ThinkGeek for our development team (hey, we did a good job, we deserved it!) Since the whole batch cost quite a lot money the customs noticed it and I had to pay a humungous import tax...and I live in an EU country known as a tax paradise.

Of course taxing downloaded MP3's would be a very difficult thing, but in essence they'll just shift the way of taxing. For example, tax your internet connection more (just like "kijkgeld", you know what I talk about, I don't know the english word). There are tons of ways to tax some service that is untaxable in an direct way.

Oh, by the way, shoudn't you say "The Netherlands" instead of "Holland"? ;-)

Intereference?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of asshole labels as 'interferences' the EU effort to stop music labels monopoly from invading the online world?

If anything, the EU should make sure that big labels can not go online both directly and indirectly, via some front subsidiary.

You motherfucking asshole...

MOCA and "maybe the EU will save our butts!"

[jswitte]

I agree with this, although I wouldn't say the record companies should be completely excluded from distribution online, they just shouldn't have a monopoly either, or have laws designed to promote monopoly (compyright extension, some of the anti-piracy bills, etc). Compulsory licensing, as the MOCA proposes, would be nice. (What's happening with MOCA anyway?) Copyright reform, to disallow corporations from holding indefinately copyrights to music that really should be held by their artists, federal limits on contract law (indentured servitude?), and maybe anti-trust action would be nice too. IMO, the Big Five have not only almost completely sown up the market from the consumers end of the market with 90-95% dominance, they've also sown up the market from the "labor" (artists) end too, by standardizing their Draconian contract terms and maybe other practices they'd rather us not know about.

I'm always suprised that while both copyrights and patents are on about equal footing as far as their (U.S.) Constitutional basis goes, the courts (AFAIK) regularly extend copyrights, but more rarely extend patents. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I also don't how the less-than-recent case-law is different concerning copyrights vs. patents.

Gosh, two stories in one day about Europe: Germany considering switching to Linux, and the EU proposing blocking music sites. What was that little voice I heard saying that the 21st century wouldn't be an "American century"?

Re:Yawn - another Slashdot pro-piracy story

[Svartalf]

Has less to do with radio itself and more to do with the big labels trying to strip-mine the populace for money. They're not fostering development of artists anymore and they're picking stuff that they know will sell a bunch of stuff real quick and make a profit now, not in a couple of year's time. More often than not, an artist that DOES develop into something ends up being in a position of power over the labels (i.e. They own a lot of the "properties" or they can get away with renting the rights to the music for a time.) so they try to avoid that.

All that matters to the labels (many of which are responsible for the me-tooism of the games industry as they're the ones doing the publishing now...) is making profits. The only way that they know how to do this nowadays (because it turns the biggest profit, short-term) is to go for that "sure thing" every time.

The EU...

[Anonymous Coward]

always considers a lot of progressive things, but in the end, they always bend over.

Re: This idea and monopolies

[jswitte]

Yes, it does require monopolies. But monopolies don't always have to be bad things. 99% of the time they are, but I think that's just becuase there's a often-greedy capitalist at the other end of them. I am a capitalist, but it's a system that can be abused far too easily. However, if the government too control of licensing copyrighted materials for a reasonable fee, I think it could work.

Give the recording studios a limited time to have exclusive rights (to recoup expenses and make a reasonable amount of profit if they can (otherwise they just need to run a tighter artistic ship and not hide behind the "only 5 out of 100 artists make it" crap - well, choose better artists!). These regs should be rigidly enforced, not subject to change by less than a 95% vote of Congress, and a time-period based on the size of the advance given to the artist, and have the accounting independently audited by different firms regularly to avoid "creative accounting" ("Hmm, what's this - a $10 million advance to pay for popcorn?")

A bigger blackhole for the RIAA

[WyldOne]

Lets expand on the idea of a blackhole list. and dump all traffic from some sites.

Benefits:

Suddenly they would have no more complaints - they could no longer see the rest of the world.

They would not be able to hack our machines. (prevention of terrorist activity via USA act)

Re:Yawn - another Slashdot pro-piracy story

[night_flyer]

No, Not my problem, I have well over 500 CDs in my collection, many by complete unknowns. Thanks to Napster I was able to listen to the whole album BEFORE I decided to purchase the CD, and I DID purchase what I liked...

an indie artists speaks!

[master2b]

The bottom line is your /mp3 directory provides absolutely no direct compensation to the artist for the procurement of that music.

Some people (like me :-) ) are interested in being 'recording' artists, but not necessarily in live performances, or merchandise. Totally unrestricted digital transfer of files really undermines the possibility of that. Personally I think studio music has a place and I am not interested in destroying that market place.

As poor as the relationship is between many recording artists and the major record labels, the record label foots the bill! The record companies only recoup on 1/20 of all the cds they release. READ THE SOBERING REALITY

Research this thoroughly . . . not all artists are ready to have their revenues totally driven by live performances and merchandise.

As an independent artist I simply didn't use napster, because I didn't see a way for the artist to be compensated. Only mp3s I have are for albums which I've purchased a license to via tape, CD, etc. or I created the content ;-).

Re:an indie artists speaks!

[vovin]

The bottom line is your /mp3 directory provides absolutely no direct compensation to the artist for the procurement of that music

And

As an independent artist I simply didn't use napster, because I didn't see a way for the artist to be compensated. Only mp3s I have are for albums which I've purchased a license to via tape, CD, etc. or I created the content ;-).

Is conjecture that the fore mentioned /mp3 directory:

• Is not ripped from CDs
• Purchase on any media allows free unilaterial transference to any other media.

One is conjecture, and the other is 'forbidden' by the organization (RIAA) whos propaganda you are shoving.

Just because members of RIAA don't know how to run their businesses (ie are too profitable to bother fixing their production/distribution models) is no justification (excuse) for them denying my fair use rights under the first sale doctrine.

Fortunatly for me, my music preferences are only satisified by small independant labels, and bands that only press/sell 2-10 thousand CDs.

BTW: My /mp3 directory is all ripped from CD's I own ... and I don't feel bad about that one bit.

Re:an indie artists speaks!

[Anonymous Coward]

>The bottom line is your /mp3 directory provides absolutely no direct compensation to the artist for the procurement of that music

Is conjecture that the fore mentioned /mp3 directory:
Is not ripped from CDs
Purchase on any media allows free unilaterial transference to any other media.

But the original statement was perfectly correct. In your example the artist was compensated by the purchase of the CD, not by the ripping to MP3 format, certainly not by sharing it. It's legal to rip if you own the CD, but still doesn't mean that the mp3 directory itself does anything for the artist.
The only way that MP3s can currently provide payment to the artist is with a legitimate pay-to-download service, or by providing exposure to a small band that can't get it any other way (which may result in other sales of CDs etc, but probably not many if all their stuff is available free anyway).

The applications of a program like Napster for these legal uses are limited and in practice seem pretty unlikely (transfer of mp3s between home and work being one of the more referenced, and silly, examples). A more legitimate service for free music would never get so popular, but could at least provide the benefits to the small artists.

Just because members of RIAA don't know how to run their businesses (ie are too profitable to bother fixing their production/distribution models) is no justification (excuse) for them denying my fair use rights under the first sale doctrine.

Their production/distribution model works; that's how they got so big. This article is about them overstepping the legal mark on their online distribution model. They know what they're doing, and they know that there is no requirement for them to compete legitimately against illegal services. And fair use is more of a privilege than a right; it's basically about stopping them from sueing you over a fair use of the product, not about forcing them to let you use it that way. The proposed protections do seem rather ridiculous; crippling the product for regular users will only annoy their real customers rather than the pirates... then again, whatever they do, there'll be someone who screws around and bypasses it, forcing them onto the next level of dumb protections.

Fortunatly for me, my music preferences are only satisified by small independant labels, and bands that only press/sell 2-10 thousand CDs.
BTW: My /mp3 directory is all ripped from CD's I own ... and I don't feel bad about that one bit.

Now if we can get a wholly legal service that lets these bands distribute their own MP3s, and as long as you're not sharing that directory... then everything's rosy.

Re:an indie artists speaks!

[vovin]

And my point is that you can't support an organization (reference to RIAA material) and quietly ignore the organizations stance on the issue.

The RIAA does not support the owning of MP3 format music, no matter the means of aquisition. (Even my legally owned CD's ripped to my drive with the CD's sitting next to my machine --- and I don't share my disk at all) is not kosher according to RIAA.

RIAA does definatly *not* support my downloading MP3's of songs which I own legitimatly on cassette tape (Which are two of the actions reference as supported by the OP personally). Which more generally is free unilaterial transference to any other media is not a RIAA supported action.

I would suggest that no indie artist who understands the industry would support the RIAA's business model. See: Courtney Love does the math.

Whenever I see a musician thinking that they will get rich selling CD's I feel bad for them. They may get rich but it won't be from selling CD's, It will be from concerts, writting, and producing. In other words, a lot of hard work. Hard work can be a great thing, if that's what you like to do (it's more like getting paid to play). If you want to produce a few hits sit on your ass and watch the $$$ roll it, forget about it.

Re:How to spot satire, a guide for the irony impai

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't sarcasm what you just described as irony?

Re:Yawn - another Slashdot pro-piracy story

[Anonymous Coward]

You expect them to market the CD based on the crap songs then?
The same way Coke keeps promising beautiful girls on a beach and 'adding life' (does that mean you'll live longer?) or McDonalds 'tastes good'... if you don't like it is that then false advertising?

As long as they don't promise that "every song is this good" or sell you a CD missing the song it's marketed with, it's not false advertising. All they usually tell you is the album "features the hit songs...", which it does. They are a teaser for the band's style; the quality of the rest of the album depends on the performers. In general the only albums that have somewhat disappointed me where if the 'hit songs' were quite different in style from the album (one Sugar Ray album was a little like this).

Not being able to return the goods amounts to too many people TRYING fraud and theft, by copying the CD and returning the original. If the product is defective you can usually swap it. If it's just not quite what you wanted, then it's up to the retailer whether they want to have a policy on that.

Your own expectations being too high is not a crime on their part. You got what you paid for, so it's not theft. You got what they promised to deliver, so it's not fraud. Caveat emptor.

And what's with the reference to 'so-called good songs'? The CD is marketed based on them, you get to hear them and determine how good they are for yourself. So unless you're really susceptible to advertising hype, you'd buy based on your own determination of them as 'good songs', not because someone called them that.

Re:How to spot satire, a guide for the irony impai

[DrClownius]

Irony is the use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

I can't help but think that the people who moderated this post "Insightful" as opposed to "Funny" really didn't understand the concepts contained in it.

Re:How to spot satire, a guide for the irony impai

[pubjames]

You use that word a lot.. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The definition of irony I gave was taken from a dictionary. Sarcasm is defined as a cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.

You may be confused by that song by Alanis Morissette, in which she uses a slightly different meaning of ironic - something that happens that's the opposite of what you expect.

Look them up in a dictionary.

Re:How to spot satire, a guide for the irony impai

[pubjames]

I think it is hilarious that this post has been moderated as insightful and informative. In the UK most people would recognise that this post is 'taking the piss'. It's meant to be funny and is mocking the stupidity of some slashdotters.

Obviously my English humour is too subtle for some people.

Yawn, more anti-Mimbleton wanking

[Bumbleton]

Didn't you know he just got 700 posts? Quit harassing the guy, he's had a long day.

Motherfucker.

Kudos for this one

[Armaphine]

Nice eyes... this would be THE thing to begin taking a notch out of many of the record companies. After all, they probably would continue to place the logo on their products, despite it not meeting specs. And while it certainly wouldn't bring them to their knees or anything, it does, however, tie up some of their lawyers fighting that battle and not working to screw over anyone else.