Slashdot Mirror
Is CD Copy Protection Illegal?
ribbiting writes "US Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. is asking RIAA execs to explain how they can collect royalties on various blank media at the same time that the RIAA members are implementing copy protection mechanisms, with particular reference to the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992."
Glad someone is asking the question.
Except that they get a bit of money for every blank tape or CD as compensation for us being able to do those same copies they now want to inhibit.
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Y'know, I'm at the point where I'd move to VA just to be able to someday vote for him ;-)
According to the US constitution, Congress may pass law to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
But it doesn't have to.
And several million voters got used to Napster.
I doubt that there will be any dramatic steps in either direction, but disallowing and preventing everything probably won't happen.
Well, ok, it's either copy protection or the 1992 law they use to make a few bucks, obviously. I have this feeling that they will lose much more by trying to enforce copy protection (and by giving up that law, possibly) than just letting things go this way. Just think about it: you can circumvent copy protections -- that should be quite clear by now -- but you can't circumvent compulsory taxes so easily :-)
You aren't free to not pay the taxes on blank media that they want (except by not buying blank media, but a lot of us have legitimate need for CDRs, etc).
That's the real problem, in my opinion. You are assumed guilty without even a chance of proving your innocence.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
I think we all know the answer though. A massive bribe by the RIAA's lobbyists should answer any of the congressman's dilemas.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
This seems similar to the Bells and AT&T selling the consumer Caller ID, then CID blocker to the telemarketers, then selling caller id blocker blocker to the consumer, then ....
From the article:
The labels are worried that the rise of home CD-burners has eaten into album sales, particularly after the worst year in a decade for the music industry.
These sales figures couldn't possibly shaped by the fact that the RIAA is releasing the shittiest music in a decade, could it?
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Intellectual property laws have done their job -- they've created a massive amount of stuff -- some good, some bad. But now the system is choking itself.
Copy protection schemes are the wrong target.
FINALLY! Some congress-critters are beginning to think that the RIAA might not be the next best thing since apple-pie. I wonder if this is in any way the result of the wonderful efforts of this community and others like it. It is a nice thing to see when you see the Great Machine begin to slowly turn the right way...
But don't stop now. Not only should you continue to keep those letters and emails flowing, but you should also send new letters and email praising the efforts of those congress-folk who make a good descision, after all, they like to get a pat on the head as much as the next person...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Did you bother to read the article at all?
They're getting PAID by us consumers NOT to make copy-protected CDs under an existing law.
The question is whether it's fair to REQUIRE consumers to pay a "tax" to the record companies for the privilege of being able to copy CDs for personal use and then for the record companies to copy-protect CDs anyway. It's a great deal for the record companies at the consumers' expense: free money and they don't have to do anything in return.
If they're going to sell copy-protected CDs, they should no longer get their "protection money" for blank CD sales.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
It's not a tax, it's a "levy." :) But the RIAA doesn't really have anything to do with that in Canada. The money goes to Canadian artists, based on record sales, which is the part that bugs me. They could give all this cash (22c/disc, currently) to promote up-and-coming bands, but it's all going to Celine Dion and Bryan Adams. GenericGarageBand doesn't see a dime. Not to mention every time you download and burn *BSD (Linux/Solaris/whatever), you're giving money to the music industry.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
It's not that simple. According to the law, you have the right to make copies of the music you buy for personal use. In exchange for that right, the recording labels get a small amount of money from the sale of blank media. By attempting to make it impossible to copy CDs, the labels are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to collect money from the sale of blank media, while at the same time making it impossible to use that media for its intended purpose, thereby forcing the consumer to pay yet again for another copy of the same music.
In simpler terms, if I buy a CD, and want to burn a copy to keep in my car, that's my right, and the label gets compensated by collecting a small percentage from the sale of the blank CD. What they want to do, however, is collect that money, and by making it impossible for to make a copy, get me to buy another full-price copy for my car. That's doesn't seem fair. They either need to give up the money they collect from blank-media sales, or stop trying to prevent me from making copies.
But I suppose a few million in lobbying money will make it all come out in the labels' favor in the end. My few $$ as a consumer mean nothing in the face of the industry lobby. Won't it be great when we all have our Passports(tm) and can be charged every time we listen to a song?
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
You aren't free to not pay the taxes on blank media that they want (except by not buying blank media, but a lot of us have legitimate need for CDRs, etc).
Actually as far as CDR's are concerned you are free to avoid paying the tax, just buy Data CDRs instead of Music CDRs. There is virtually no difference between the media, except that Audio CD to CDR burners such as you might have in a audio component system, won't work with the Data CD. CDR burners for PCs don't care.
Of course making a copy of an audio CD onto a Data CDR would be a violation of the same act, but until the RIAA and the recording industry in general start complying, I can't see that they should have any expectation that consumers will.
Why is it that this hasn't come up before, and does anyone know how this act affects MP3's? Should they be considered legal as long as you burn them to media on which you have paid the royalty tax?
Work for Change & GET PAID!
is that the blank media tax (at least in Canada, and I think the States) goes exclusively to the music publishers. So everytime I download a new Slack version or whatever, I'm giving money to support N'Sync. That's the really criminal part. Why would you assume every blank CD is used to copy music that you didn't buy? If I'm making a backup copy of my legally purchased disc, why am I paying more money to give myself an extra?
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Isn't the CD-R "tax" only levied on "music" CD-Rs (The more expensive kind that you always pass up for the same brand but cheaper "normal" CD-Rs next to them)? At some point, home audio CD-recorders would only use the "music" CD-R variety, as the sale of those included a royalty payment. I didn't think there was a royalty included on normal CD-Rs.
They steal your music, your culture, your ideas, your stories, your language, mass produce it, shrink-wrap it and then sell it back to you.
This is exactly the problem... The RIAA/MPAA are the forces driving western culture into the ground, creating generations of bumbling, sex-mad idiots with carbon-copy personalities and giving capitalism a bad name.
Aside from any legal problems, I think it's damned unethical the way today's media giants operate.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
...which is why I'm as pissed off about it now as I am, whereas just a week ago I simply shrugged and thought: "well, that's for people who want to copy Britney records is all".
... right, didn't think so) disk in the mail. Guess what? I couldn't review it until I remembered there was a half broken diskman up in the attic somewhere because it was copy protected and couldn't be played on a cd-rom drive (I don't have - or didn't think I had - a regular cd player, it's either cd's in cd-rom drives or records for me, thank you). This is an album that will sell poorly by major label standards, even if it sells extremely well (two thousand copies at most). No one on Napster++ is going to be interested in mp3's I rip off it (not that I do, but ...). Finally, it's something that will appeal primarily to a somewhat technophile audience likely to play it on a cd-romplayer - why the fuck do they do this? Is this worth alienating the 1000 or so fans Oval has? Don't think so...
Today I got a review copy of an Oval (raise your hands if you've heard about them
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
I was in school at the time, and our University had maybe a couple CD burners for student use, and that was actually later than 1992. Broadband was available only at work and in the computer labs. Our dorms didn't start getting ethernet until a year later.
So in 1992, when the RIAA managed to get the law passed compensating them for piracy, there was a whole lot less digital piracy occurring simply because most people didn't have access to equipment to make digital copies. It seems we now have the choice between allowing copy protection or increasing the compensation to the RIAA if we assume that the 1992 law was just. :-(
Nevertheless, piracy will continue. If I buy CDs that force me to use a special player, you can bet that I'll decide to rip them to mp3s just so I can use XMMS. The RIAA could argue that piracy will continue, and they should be compensated accordingly, though now they can claim that hard drives, memory sticks, compact flash, and smart media storage also contribute to their allegedly lost sales and that these should also be taxed.
end of line
along side this is a question i've had for a while: why, after paying this "tax" on blank media, have i not been considered to have paid for the copies i have made (or will make)? since it is assumed that i will use my blank media for music copies, why is it wrong for me to then use my blank media for copies of music?
geek friendly VPS's and free API enabled DNS : zerigo.com
The main thrusts of the law are:
-No copyright infringment suit can be brought against someone making home digital recordings.
-Retailers have the right to sell copying equipment and media, so long as they contain serial copy protection.
-The RIAA collects a royalty of 2% on copying equipment and 3% on media.
That the RIAA might be violating this law by making copy-proof cds is not immediately apparent from a quick reading. In fact, the definitions of what is and is not a "digital musical recording" do not seem to hinge in any way on the "copyability" of the recording, and the only qualification for entitlement to payments is that an entity is making and distributing recordings so defined.
The point that copy-proof cds violate the spirit of this law is a good one. I think that any argument that the letter of the law is violated is weak, however. Anyone who can determine otherwise would make me happy, though, since IANAL.
As a final point, the fact that a congressman is looking into this might make violation of the letter of the law irrelevant since congress, of course, has the power to create new law.
With the economy being the worst it's been in over a decade then the decline in album sales seems to be about right. I know a couple of things. 1) When I didn't have a job for eight months I didn't go out and blow money on luxury items like music. 2) At $20 + tax for most for most new releases I'm buying much less music than I did when CDs sold for about $15 a pop. The RIAA should take a good look at their pricing and product quality before blaming file sharing and CD buring for lower revenue.
Not only are you paying a tax to the "music providers" for using a CD-R or CD-R/W or blank tape, they ARE NOT PAYING IT TO:
the musicians listed on MP3.com - where is their cut of the pie?
the indie recorder who got listed on Napster - where is their cut of the pie?
Face it - the money only goes to those musicians stupid enough to have signed a contract with a RIAA music provider. In which they lost their copyright ability to earn the most money from the sale of their music, and in return get less than a penny per song played from many dollars collected on the sale of the CD.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
now that we have 2390482398 copies of the same general idea posted... i have a new one to add to the melee.
what is going to happen when the people who use operating systems produced by people outside this company... aren't able to access the music on a copy-protected cd?
"no, i'm sorry mom. you can't use your imac to listen to that cd because the record companies don't want you to."
when I compile your comment I get the following errors:: no such file
Line 3; undertermined character constant
Line 8; I_realize_Napster_is_not_equivalent_to_Fair_Use.h
can you help me?
Please help! I'm stuck inside my virtual reality headset!
You mean like the U.S. Government taxing your income, then taxing it again when you invest it and make money? And taxing it again if you use that money to pay an employee?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
(Disclaimer: I think the tax on recordable media is stupid and completely unjustifiable - it is not the job of the government to compensate people for flawed business models)
Assuming that you can somehow justify paying a tax on recordable media, IIRC the way it works right now is that the copyright owners get a proportion of the money based on the sales of the particular records.
Records which are copy-protected should simply be removed from the equation and everything should continue the way it is. Why is this so hard?
Mmmm.. Donuts
Well the next question is what do we want?
If you follow the music industry line of reasoning then copy protection should boost sales by curbing piracy. If it's really as big a deal as they want you to believe then this should more than offset the loss of the tax. Hence by economics of scale, we should see cheaper music and cheaper digital media. Of course all of that is predicated on the assumption that the recording industry isn't entirely made up of monopolistic money-grubbing pigs.
Alternatively we can throw copy protection in the trash and keep the high music costs and artificially inflated digital media costs.
Is there a winning situation for the consumer? Not really, unless you can believe that RIAA represents a fair, economically sound industry and you don't care about fair use rights.
Doesn't look like there is actually anything in the Audio Home Recording Act that says that the RIAA members can't do what they are doing. (Moral considerations aside.) Apparently, the drafters of the Act back in 1992 didn't think that there would ever be enough copy protection to worry about. Of course, that's why the Act was passed-- the recording industry was all whipped up about the revenue it was going to loose as a result of people making digital copies.
:
Here's the text of the Audio Home Recording Act.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
(Arranged in easy to navigate sections from Cornell Law School)
http://www.hrrc.org/html/ahra.html
(Full text on one page from Audio Home Recording Rights Coalition)
Subchapter C is the part that is particularly interesting in that it sets out the details on royalty payments. You will have to cross reference to the definitions section is Subchapter A, however, in order to fully understand who is entitled to collect payments. Love the method of splitting up the royalty payments!
Finally someone is paying attention to this issue. I've posted this information in a couple of slashdot threads, and here it is again. It's one of the most incredible recording industry lies/ripoffs. Maybe now it will get some attention.
...
...
The upshot of it is that every time you purchase a digital audio recorder, or blank digital audio recording media, such as audio CDRs, you pay a small statutory royalty into a fund. This fund is collected by the Federal Government, and turned over directly to the music industry. The name of the fund is the DART fund. DART stands for "Digital Audio Recording Technology". The best source of information on the DART fund is right here
These documents are very interesting. They show how the money was paid out. The law was written to allow all of the major copyright interests to gather together and collect all the money in one lump sum. According to the first report on the page, we find that 99.997% (LITERALLY!) of all of the statutory royalties collected on blank digital audio media (mostly CDRs), and digital audio recording devices went to the following organizations:
Broadcast Music, Inc. (``BMI'');
the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (``ASCAP'');
SESAC, Inc. (``SESAC'');
the Harry Fox Agency (``HFA'');
the Songwriters Guild of America (``SGA'');
and Copyright Management, Inc. (``CMI'')
Copyright Management, Inc. is a blanket organization that represents all of the major record labels.
In other words, all of the people who are raising hell that they aren't being paid when people burn music onto CDRs are being
you got it
paid every time a blank CDR is purchased!
However, nowhere in any of these web pages will you find the actual dollar figures. The reports go to laughable extremes to avoid disclosing exactly how much money we are talking about. For instance, according to the report, for the 1995 funds collected, 99.998034% was paid to the music industry, 0.001966% was paid to one individual claimant, and 0.000614% was paid to Ms. Alicia Evelyn.
I obtained the actual royalty yearly figures by contacting Ms. Evelyn, one of the individual claimants. Ms. Evelyn is a songwriter who, unable to obtain any royalty payments from ASCAP for her work, petitioned the copyright office directly for payment. She read me these numbers over the phone which she received in the course of her research. If you do the math, you'll find that she received a few pennies for her efforts. Literally.
Here are the total amounts collected year by year since 1992. These statutory royalties were all paid out to the recording industry:
1992 $118,227.42
1993 $520,162.84
1994 $521,999.64
1995 $473,592.20
1996 $397,152.52
1997 $969,178.06
1998 $1,978,457.93
1999 $3,551,030.86
2000 $5,285,246.32
So, while on the one hand, the music industry is claiming that they are not being paid when individuals make audio CDRs of their music, yet on the other hand, they are quietly collecting millions of dollars in statutory royalties from consumers when they purchase blank digital audio media.
The key here is that these are statutory royalties. They are NOT a tax. They are described as royalties in the law, and they function exactly as royalties.
A royalty is what you pay in exchange for the right to make a copy. This is the ordinary meaning of the term "royalty", as it is used throughout copyright law, and there is absolutely no evidence that it means anything else in the context of the AHRA.
I submit that by accepting these statutory royalty payments from the general public, the recording industry, and every major record label claimed this money, has incurred an obligation to permit the public to exercise the rights that they have paid for, to the tune of millions of dollars per year.
This is NOT an issue of fair use. This is an issue of consumers receiving the rights that they have paid for.
Kudos for Rep. Boucher. We need more representatives of his caliber with his level of committment to the rights of the people.
Wow, not only did he think arresting Dmitri Sklyarov was a bad idea:
)
m )
p ?CID=N00002171&cycle=2000)
This unfortunate legal action highlights the overly broad terms of the criminal provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). It clearly demonstrates the intrusion of these provisions on the ability of American citizens to exercise their legally protected fair use rights,
(http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/sklyarov.htm
but he also gets that the entertainment industry wants money off the public everytime you listen to music or watch a movie.
As NTIA recognized in its letter, one of the foremost concerns reflected in the Congressional report upon passage of the DMCA was that changes in the law could chill the exercise of consumers' traditional "fair use" rights, and move us all toward a "pay-per-use" society.
Unfortunately, the announced exceptions to the rule are so narrow as to be practically meaningless. Fair use is not protected.
...Congress in its next session should act to prevent the creation of a "pay per use" society, in which what is available today on the library shelf for free is available in the future only upon payment of a fee for each use.
(http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/payperuse.ht
Wow! That'll teach the entertainment industry to only give him $18,500 when the telephone industry gave him $49,000 (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/detail.as
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
I agree completly.
I can't remember the number of times I've sat here and listened to all the armchair QBs on slashdot say "If I had the chance I'd make a diffrence.". Well, guess what! This is your chance. Get up, find a stamp and do your part. It's easy, even a post card will work. Even if doubt your letter will effect anything, don't worry it's cheap, easy and it will definitly benifit a postal system that could use some help anyway.
Communication is about content not presentation.
BUT...Microsoft's own EULA -- which in their own words is a legal agreement -- states that if the original media is required to play the game (as is the case here), then it is permissible to make a backup copy of the game CDs. To quote:
So as you can see there is a major contradiction here. Microsoft explicitly and legally states that it is okay to make backup copies, but they implicitly state that it is not. Are they contradicting their own agreement here? Is this legal?
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
I assume this double dip only applies to the "music" cdr's.
How can someone determine exactly what blank data cd's are being used for?
Ask 20 people the same question and you will get 20 completely different breakdowns.
Based on my burning habits, how much should be a per disk gift to the RIAA to cover their simulated paper loses?
If I had a decent vid capture card I would be saving tv shows to cdrom but not yet..
My last hundred burned cd's breakdown to this..
5 Playstation backups
yes I own the originals
5 Dreamcast stuff
not games but emu's, and extra stuff that others have made.
10 Audio cd's of music that I made.
I made - meaning original music. I sequence midi files and record and edit the final product in wav format.
5 computer game discs
yes I own the originals
15 Software discs
Software I have downloaded, like patches, IE updates, MS service packs, plugins, Netscape, driver updates, Star Office etc..
15 Linux distros and software
10 MP3 disks
mp3's that were converted from CD's I own or I created (see above). I use these in my home DVD player and my laptop when on the road.
15 data disks with pictures from my digital camera
5 data disks filled with prOn and car pictures from various usenet groups
5 data backups - various data files that need backed up
3 stuff I do not own..
d/l mp3's, game roms, cracked software etc..
7 coaster - ran into problems copying some of the above.. I could probably make this better but I try disc-disc on the fly first, if that doesnt work I see why (orignal scratched, copy protection that slows reading etc..) and try another method.
Is that 100?
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Perhaps we should "acquire" some 18-wheelers loaded up with blank audio CD-Rs, drive to Boston Harbor, and toss them in?
IANAL, but I feel pretty confident about this: You have the *right* to copy it, but you can't do it in any normal way because it would have to be a DMCA violation. Since DMCA is law, the law takes precedence over any agreement. Of course you could stamp (as in cd press) a perfect copy and it'd be legal (as you're not breaking any copyright method), so you can't claim the right has been entirely taken away from you. Thus your right exists, but as 99.9999% doesn't have a cd stamper around, you can't exercise it. It's like giving you TV broadcast rights in the US, but if and only if you send from the back of the moon.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's great that you can complain about how mass media is destroying your culture... but what do you propose to do about it? Establish some government oversight preventing more than 20K copies of any CD from being distributed? Require the taxpayers to fund the publication of any artist who thinks they have something worth distributing?
Capitalism may be a poor method of resource distribution -- but there is none better.
The article says 'sightings are rare' - don't think so, see here.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
A couple years back, the state of arizona thought it would be sneaky and try to screw drug dealers out of more money. They created a cannabis tax - The idea being that if you were caught with a bunch of bud that you hadn't paid taxes on, they could use the "tax" to extort that money out of you.
Funny thing is, because they had the tax, they had to then create a cannabis license. So, people started applying for licenses to sell cannabis.
When all was said and done, and everything went through court, it was decided that these people who had applied for and received cannabis sale licenses and had paid the tax, could not then be prosecuted for selling cannabis.
So...If I pay a tax on the blank media I buy - a tax that was put in place to compensate the various content holders for "piracy" - does that not then give me the implicit right to use that media for "piracy"? I mean, hell, I *did* pay the tax after all...
Actually, I'm contemplating a campaign contribution. I don't even live in VA, but I feel compelled to support someone with a clue by putting a little money behind him.
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
Come to think of it, when I had Napster at my beck and call I downloaded a lot of music (for a 56k guy, that is--if only I had my cable uplink back then!). But I also bothered to go out and buy CDs, something I seldom did before and haven't done since.
When I had Napster, I logged into its chatrooms, talked with people, and got pointers on what to listen to. Then I downloaded a few songs, listened--and if I liked I often went out and bought a CD. That's how I got intorduced to music like Cat Power and P.J. Harvey. But even when I could find > 160kbps MP3s of their songs, I still often wanted the better sound and the liner notes and images of the CDs.
A trip to Best Buy to pick up some blank CDs or a new PCI card or game often led to a new CD purchase, too. But not any more. I don't get introduced to new music I really like, since MTV is 99% kiddie-pop or shitty rapcrap, VH1 is 90% stuff I heard 10 years ago, and nowhere else is there in my area to get into music and explore.
I think that's what the RIAA bitches don't understand. The piracy angle is insignificant if the side-channels it creates get millions of people to be more enthusiastic about music and let them find the kind of music they really want. You see, it turns a largely indifferent market--and let's face it, unless you're a child or young adult into the MTV sort of demographic, the odds are you're pretty indifferent about music and only buy it on occasion--into the same sort of excited MTV-kiddiez who rush out to buy the latest NSYNC crapola, only about a far broader range of music. For every Britney Spears lover who downloads her whole new album at 128kbps instead of buying the CD, there are several people who sample a few dozen tracks and then get inspired to buy a CD or two when they never would have bought one before.
That's exactly the sort of person I met in the Napster chatrooms quite often. I mean, if they were still in print I'd buy every Cat Power album ever recorded, all thanks to someone at the Napster forums, and I know there are lots of others who'd say the same about an artist they never would have known but for online "piracy."
Incidentally, if anyone can point me to a copy of Cat Power's "Darling Said Sir" from one of her old out of print singles, I NEED THAT SONG. I can't find it, not even in online record stores, and only have a very bad and scratchy MP3 of it at 128kbps. I had to mention it beause I've been searching for sooooo long.
Anyway, I think the nail has been hit right on the head. All those increased record sales pre-Napster shutdown were due to ordinary people becoming excited music lovers and buying music they never would have known about before. The decline in music sales ever since has been due to the fact that no real replacement for Napster's community exists yet--no place with an easy interface that anyone and everyone can log into, with integrated chat functions and real ease of finding almost anything at almost any bitrate. I've tried stuff like Limewire, WinMX, Kazaa/Morpheus--each has fatal flaws. Some lack Napster's nice integrated chat communities. Some only find crappy 128k music and won't let you limit your seaches to better quality stuff. Some is too hard for an average guy to use. Some are just too obscure with too few users. Some never provide stable connections when you try to make a transfer.
In short, nothing is what Napster was. If the recording industry were to be beaten within an inch of its life with a clue-stick, it would realize that what it needs to do is just remake Napster exactly like it was, with open MP3 and OGG file formats freely allowed, with a reasonable subscription fee to be doled out to artists and labels according to number of downloads for each song. If it were a reasonable flat monthly fee and the file formats were open and unencumbered, most old Napster users and a bunch more would jump on it--as I said, the other file trading networks just aren't as good, with all the features and ease and connectivity Napster had. And most people would continue to buy CDs, and just as before a lot of non-CD-buyers would become CD buyers thanks to the music they're introduced to. Let's face it: a real album still usually offers something an MP3 doesn't. Tangibility. Pictures. Notes and information about the band and the album production. Show-off-ability--easier to point a friend to an album on the shelf and tell him how great it is, than to point him to your hard drives.
Not that I like the RIAA, but they could have easily consolidated their power over the industry into the next millennium by embracing Napster and working with it toward a fee-based licensing regime. Instead, by fighting the new media, and trying to impose control under their own unnatural terms, they're pissing away their power and influence. Stupid, stupid RIAA.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Something just hit me. This is so obvious to me now based on what you just said and based on my previous comment.
You know how in 1984 by George Orwell, he talks about the "Versificator" (it's in Part II, chapter IV)?
I'll quote it for you:
"The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention on an instrument known as a versificator." - George Orwell, 1984, Part II, Chapter IV
And so here we are today with clone-bands singing cloned songs that all sounds the same. Have you noticed that "oops i did it again" and "baby one more time" have the same music and different words? Doesn't it seem like those BSB and NSync songs all sound the same and are cranked out from the same machine-liked process? There are other songs within (and between!) the boyband groups with the same music and different lyrics. Try finding them. You'll be surprised.
I'm not sure which idea scares me most:
1. In this picture, WE (or at least most of the wealthy countries' youth of today) are the proles.
2. Most people don't even have a clue how accurately our situation portrays a portion of Orwell's book that was written decades ago.
On a related point, your link has got me thinking about philanthropy on Slashdot. I'm still baffled why this site does not run drives to raise money for various causes - like a "Cause of the Month" type of thing. Kuro5hin has been doing this lately. There are always cause de jours that need money (Sklyarov) and the EFF could be the default. Hell, create a Slashdot poll to determine who gets the money for the next month. Taco could set up a Paypal account and donate the proceeds to each cause at the end of the month. Put the link on the homepage and BAM! donate with a single click, as you read.
Various posters talk about contributing to groups like the EFF - perhaps we can make this a community priority (as well as making it as easy as possible for people to do so).
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
What the label is providing is knowledge about how to sell music, and how to make music that sells, which is only partially related to how to make music that sounds good. But what they're really providing in return for your soul, first-born child, and ownership of your music is that they're running the business and hiring you to play music for them, like a bar owner hiring you to play for the evening, unlike the computer venture capitalist deal where the VC lends you money, owns much of the stock, but you run the business as well as making the product. Why can't you just buy studio time yourself? Theoretically you can, and if you can market your music successfully, cool. Studios are a lot less expensive than they used to be, but advertising is more expensive, but delivering product is less expensive. It's getting to be time to kick the chair out from under the traditional industry structure.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Rep. Boucher who was rerferred to by John Perry Barlow as "The only person in Congress who gets it." (at the O'Reilly Conference)has some ideas on Fair Use that are well worth reading. As a VA resident who has met and discussed DMCA and fair use with Congressman Boucher, he needs your support in helping to correct many of the problems with the DMCA as it exists, by letting YOUR Congressperson know that you, as a constituent, want them to support the changes. They need your vote, without being elected, they don't get the lobby dollars that the copyright industry scatters around DC like confetti on New Years Eve. Point out to them they work for you not Disney, not Vivendi, etc., etc, not Hilary Rosen or Jack Valenti. They will get the point.
However, he mentions the AHRA. The interesting part about the AHRA is that it places a tax on certain blank media, and mandated certain copy protection schemes in digital recording hardware. The record companies get the money from the tax. In exchange for this, consumers got some pretty broad music copying rights.
I think the theory he is thinking about is that consumers have bought copying rights via that tax, and so that the record companies can't take steps to stop that copying, since they have accepted the money from that tax.