Slashdot Mirror
Ebert, Gillmor on the Music Industry
TTop writes "Roger Ebert has weighed in with a scathing critique of the Universal Music Group and its new copy-protection scheme which renders CDs unplayable in non-Windows operating systems, DVD players, and CD-compatible game consoles. It's nice to see the mainstream press start to come out against the idiotic copy-protection war the RIAA is declaring on their best customers, music lovers. Having to agree to a legal contract to hear a CD you've purchased on your own PC? Puh-leeze. Ebert compares these copy-protection schemes to Circuit City's failed DIVX DVD format." Columnist Dan Gillmor wrote a piece a few days ago about drawing a line in the sand.
While it's nice that more people in the public eye are speaking out against copy protection, it's not bound to help much. Money makes the world go round, as long as the RIAA and MPAA see money "lost" that could be theirs, they're not gonna stop. Well, at least not til the money spent on copy protection > the amount of money lost from sales.
:P.
But seriously, pirates hurt software companies just as bad, if not worse than the music industry. Why doesnt the RIAA, MPAA..etc recongonize this? Its not as if Adobe is giving away Photoshop. They only difference is that software companies have adapted to this changed their business model to surive.
Me too.
But realize this-- the RIAA's spin will claim that any falloff in revenue is due to piracy, not a boycott-- hence their need for the copy protection.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Just wondering since Philips did complain that this sort of copy protection that fails to work on some systems violates Red Book. Thus, can these discs carry the Compact Disc logo?
Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!
Physical Commodities - Exchange or Access
What is the fundamental basis on which we deal with the customer?
One's a single-shot deal (mostly): say hello, exchange goods/money, say goodbye.
The other's a deal that lasts for a certain period. In the case of this conference, three days.
In both cases the physicality of the commodity wholly represents the product and the work that went into producing it. The property is clear, the deal is clear.
Non-Physical Commodities? (Digital Content)
An oxymoron surely?
Let's see. Here's some digital content I'd like to make available for you to download (in only twelve bytes of ASCII) - Write the following down on a piece of paper: "A, D, A, M, space, H, A, D, space, apostrophe, E, M". Thus: "Adam Had 'em."
Incidentally, I'm not the copyright holder of this work, Ogden Nash is. So all of you who've made digital copies by writing it down have just become criminals by copying the work in its entirety.
It's called 'Fleas', also known as the shortest poem in the world, and thus highly valuable. I understand that printed copies of this poem currently retail for up to £5,000 and that consequently the punitive damages for illicit copying may be quite substantial.
If literary works of art were this easy to copy a few hundred years ago, no-one would have invented copyright, let alone convinced themselves that digital content was a commodity.
Copying Physical Commodities is not inherently profitable, so it doesn't need to be controlled
There's nothing wrong with copying physical commodities, because in general the copies are just as much work to produce as the originals.
This is except for novel, patentable devices which enjoy a dispensation to retain a legal monopoly on production for a certain period (to enable the development costs to be recouped). This is to foster economic and technological progress, not to create a human right.
If a non-physical commodity doesn't represent the labour that went into it, then either we assign a right to copy it, or we stop treating it like a commodity. If the latter, then the original work represents the work.
Art is slightly different to a commodity, it's an idea given form
Art, whether written, pictorial, or sculpted is a little different though.
Once upon a time (and today if you've got the money) you could commission art, or you could buy art from artists who'd produced it for sale.
Then, forging art didn't so much hurt the artist as hurt the purchaser. Overt copying was fine, it enabled the art to be enjoyed by more people, e.g. the Bible.
In the case of popular but painstakingly original art the economics were difficult, i.e. it's difficult for an artist or author say, to communicate en masse to their potential readership and encourage them to club together in funding a new work (unlike royalty, aristocrats, etc.). So with the advent of the performance of plays and the printing of books designed for a larger audience, we see in retrospect a new revenue mechanism arise: price each performance or copy as though it were a share in funding the original work. This also requires some ability to prevent anyone else producing copies.
Copyright is Artificial, not 'self-evident'
So we see that copyright is also not a human right, it's just another expedient mechanism to enable the copy to act as the share certificate. You bought a book? You're a paid up shareholder.
The thing is though, copyright's a magic purse. It need never stop bringing in revenue (well beyond the original development costs). And in some fortunate cases, for particularly popular art, a few artists and much of the publishing industry can enjoy great wealth.
It's a brave government that would recall all these magic purses from the rich, powerful and popular. However, there is one organization more powerful than both combined.
Widespread Copying is Endemic
What happens, when there are half a billion people online (out of a planet of 6 billion), each of whom can make a copy of any art they fancy in a moment's thought?
We're talking on a scale of mankind. If people, globally, en masse, copy art, it's possible that it's not really wrong. Rather it's that the law, created to enable a revenue mechanism that requires exclusive copy privileges, is now ineffective, irrelevant and redundant. You cannot prosecute the world. It's the revenue mechanisms that must adapt or die.
Loss of Physical Media
We've lost the physical media upon which art was distributed. This served to reinforce general acceptance of the underlying revenue mechanism in people's minds. However, online, the Emperor is now wearing the finest of sheer silks (fully naked if you ask me). There's no scrap of clothing, no wodge of paper, magnetic tape, plastic box, not even an acrylic disc. It's now just a memory. The only thing that reminds us we've paid our share for the pure information that now comprises art, is the click of the I Agree button on the license page.
So what's the answer?
Don't sell the horse after you've let it out of the stable. Or in other words, don't release the digital content and then try to sell it (relying on copyright). You can't sue 5 billion people. Nor can you place a compensating levy on computers (madness!).
And of course the classic: don't try to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. Here, I'm obviously talking of encryption and digital rights management. If the art can get into people's eyes or ears, it can be copied by a computer. Encryption is fine for keeping things exclusive when the parties concerned wish to. If you're communicating with someone who doesn't care for exclusivity, encryption won't really work, it just hinders.
Deal En Masse
So what should we do?
Sell the horse before you let it out of the stable. Go back a few hundred years and pick up the old revenue mechanisms that weren't quite so good, because it was difficult to do deals en masse.
And this is because something has changed. For the same reason that copyright is becoming ineffectual, so the public commissioning revenue mechanisms are now becoming feasible.
The biggest mental block facing business today, both online and even with interactive TV companies, is to be unable to think of dealing with the market except as a collection of individuals.
The only deal we're particularly familiar with en masse is voting, e.g. democracy, etc. We dabble with this in TV shows, even with online polls, but that's about it.
Who has dared to let people vote with their money? In the same transaction?
The new value chain
Bypass the agents, the publishers, the marketers, the advertisers, the distributors, the retailers, the packagers, etc. The new value chain is the artist and the audience. We're right back at the craftsman and the customer. Except this time, there's nothing stopping the artist doing a deal with a million people at once. Though no one's thought to create the necessary de facto e-commerce web site for such a deal. Still too busy selling to punters one by one...
The Emperor is Naked
Of course, it's very difficult to believe an emperor could possibly be naked.
If you're selling digital art, digital content, digital whatever, reserve a tiny piece of your long term strategy for the inconceivably possibility that King Canute's bottomless purse of copyright will be overrun by a tide of countless tiny infractions.
Even so, the end of copyright is not the end of commercial viability for digital content, it's the end of a particular revenue mechanism.
Consider Revenue Mechanisms that don't need Copyright
Your audience is your market - deal with it!
Check out this site for more info:
The Digital Art Auction
A good article, even if it ends a bit abrubtly. I must disagree with one of his points, however. He says:
Technically they are stealing,
I must disagree with this. They are not stealing, since no-one is deprived of anything. By his own argument, the record companies are not being deprived of sales, and unlike true theft, there is no loss of material possessions. No-one's lost money, no-one's lost a shiny disc with digital data encoded on it, no-one's been stolen from.
No, these copy protected CDs come with Windows software which will allow them to be played on PCs. If there is not Mac version of the software Mac users are out of luck.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Quote from Roger: Why do people grab music off the Net and download it to CDs, iPods, and other storage devices? Because they like it. They like it a lot. They like it enough to go to the trouble of obtaining it despite the various roadblocks. They are fans. Would they rather have a mint CD from Virgin or Tower, with the original cover art? Of course. Will they eventually be paying customers for the music they are currently sampling? In most cases, yes. Technically they are stealing, but in fact they are an instrumental part of the process by which a lot of real CDs get sold.
He actually gets it!
Wow!
You can't take the sky from me...
But realize this-- the RIAA's spin will claim that any falloff in revenue is due to piracy, not a boycott-- hence their need for the copy protection.
But the RIAA will always use some kind of spaghetti logic to claim that sales are down due to piracy. This is an projecting answer -- it enables them to project business failure onto others, as well as justify copy protection, pay-per-play and other schemes that are unpopular with end users.
The other answers -- the music sucks, the business model is flawed, etc will never be considered or publicly advanced. These are reflective answers -- they reflect on the RIAA member entities poor management and don't allow them to blame forces outside their control.
Here is the part the RIAA and MPAA should be paying attention to:
"Back when I was a member of the prime music-buying demographic, I went into Markland's Record Store on Main Street in Urbana, Illinois, and took the latest 45s into a soundproof listening booth where I could sample them. I sampled them a lot. So did all the other kids. Sometimes we would sample the same song every day for a week. The Marklands knew what we were up to. They also knew that we yearned to own those records, and that when we found the 89 cents for a 45 or the $3.98 for an LP we'd be their customers. We were fueling our enthusiasm."
I remember those days (although I didn't do it as much as some of my friends). You heard these great tunes and the first thing on your mind was "How am I going to make some money to buy this 45?" (lawn mowing, collecting pop bottles, etc.)
Its obvious the video/music cartel - just don't GET IT! They're attacking the wrong side of the
problem (piracy) instead of looking at the future.
Terry
Well, the Dead never made much cash from album sales anyway. Their bread-and-butter was in concert tickets. And it's worth noting that in '95 when fans started busting into shows (Highgate, Deer Creek), the band issued a *very* stern rebuke.
Also note that after Jerry died and the tour ended, the remaining members and employees began slugging it out over the scraps left over, including the concert recordings. Things got ugly when the shows were over.
All that aside, their model was still pretty unique and should be considered by the industry as an alternative!
The Grateful Dead did not allow live recording because they "had their money", they used live recordings as a promotional tool. The Dead allowed people to record their concerts from the beginning. Part of their success is owed to the distribution of live shows. JamBands such as Phish have kept with that tradition with much success. A lot of Phish's early growth (pre 95) can be traced to the distribution of bootleg tapes. People heard the tape, went to a show, and eventually bought a CD, T-shirt, etc. This paradigm works great with bands who emphasize live performances and grass routes growth.
I guess someone towing the usually whiney l33t /. line had to get modded up. Who are you to tell someone how much money they should be allowed to make? If you don't like how they make their money, don't give them any of yours, and don't take what they have to offer either. But if other people are happy to buy into the system, that's their decision.
I also like when you mention how great it is that starving artists are happy to let you copy their music. I thought the whole point is to actually help those people make a living. I'm sure encouraging people to pass around free digital copies accomplishes that in wonderful fashion.
Finally, did someone appoint you the arbiter of who is a "true artist"? Give me a break.
Actually by making the creation of an MP3 slightly painful, I think they will actually decrease sales. Before, if you wanted an MP3, you could buy the CD and then rip it, or you could search on the net for it and download it. Guess what option they have eliminated? They have eliminated the option where they make money! Idiots.
Back when I worked for House of Blues a couple years ago they started doing Yahoo chats with artists. To test the system and ensure that there were at least a few questions ready to be asked, we always submitted a few questions ourselves. I couldn't tell you if this is still the case, and I couldn't find any of the chat transcripts, but I remember my one standard question was what the artists thought of mp3s and people downloading their music off the internet. All the artists who I asked this to were on a major label, and none of them had any problems with people downloading mp3s. I specifically remember the Indigo Girls had the best answer. They were totally cool with it, but wanted those same people to go to their shows. If only these artists would all stand up together like the Offspring tried to do and try and bring about some change from the inside.
Apparently macs can read and burn everything but the first track. Not exactly effective copy protection.
Okay, say I'm a mac user. It's clear that I can't go out and buy the music. Damnit.
But I have an iPod and a Mac, and I REALLY (for some bizarre reason) want to listen to the music from The Fast and the Furious.
Well, if I can't buy it LEGALLY, better turn to the help of my friend the internet, so I CAN get the music. And in the end I won't go out and buy the CD because I sampled it and I liked it. I'll leave it in the store because it's COMPLETELY USELESS to me. Why waste $20?
Go to TidBits (a wonderful Mac resource) and read the following series of articles:
/. the archives)
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06604 (Content is a Pure Public Good) and
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06609 (Why Encryption Doesn't Help) and
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06629 (How to Finance Content Creation) and
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06669 (Are We Just Rationalizing Theft)
All by Dan Kohn, a General Partner with Skymoon Ventures.
These essays put an end to the argument that the current system(s) proposed by content providers will lose - no matter what.
Also, anything Lessig has authored (already in
This is a very compelling series of reads on this issue.
Furthermore, if people like Ebert, Lessig, Dan Kohn and others continue to get the word out, we, and recording artists will be a lot better off in the near long term.
It's beyond me why any well-known act would sign with a major label today, given the raw potential for this medium (the net) to do almost pure 'pull' marketing.
#include
From what I learned of contract law when I was under 18 (3-5 years ago), here's the way I *think* it would work. By permitting the copy-protected "CD"s to be sold to those under 18, Universal is effectively agreeing to follow the contract with them. Of course, the under 18s aren't legally bound by the contract, but here's where it gets interesting.
According to the law in most states...or maybe it's federal law, I don't remember...people who are under 18 can disavow contracts they have entered into. What this essentially means is that if someone enters into a contract with an IU18 (individual under 18, I refuse to use the term 'minor'), it still becomes legally binding, but not on the IU18. The other party, though, is still bound by the terms of the contract. What this means for IU18s buying copy-protected CDs is that as long as they are permitted to purchase them, which they will be, they can pretty much ignore whatever licensing restrictions Universal throws at them.
Gonna play the 'legally binding contract' game with your customers, Universal? Guess what...two can play this game.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Napster and all the other music sharing schemes allowed one to sample music from all over the place: independent stuff as well as from the companies that make up the RIAA and friends. Could it be the real reason that Napster was such a threat was it did just that? People all over the world were exploring their musical interests freely and widely and it wasn't just confined to what got pumped out of (most) radio and MTV.
What the RIAA is afraid of is NOT music piracy, per se, but the threat of the general public's musical tastes growing bigger than the set of bands they happen to be promoting.
So, now we're talking about copy protection. If the RIAA and friends get their way, we will only be able to buy CD players, etc, that will play CDs with their proprietary copy-protection/encryption scheme.
Think about it, if you wanted to listen to music on digital media, you'd have to buy THEIR music. I only hope this is a paraniod fantasy, but I can see where this is going.
If you don't believe me, ask that guy over there.
Hmmm, let's see, yes, I can still get any drugs I want to as easily as I can go buy good tomatoes at the grocery store.
Perhaps, but if you're pulled over, I'd rather have 100 CDR's full of pirated mp3's on the seat next to me than any amount of illegal drugs. I'd imagine that I could tell the police officer that those cdr's are illegal rips of music downloaded off the internet and assuming he isn't confused by the notion, he'd probably strike up a conversation about it, including his own music sharing habits.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Because the "application" that renders the "protected" audio data playable on a computer is a Win32 app.
This likely has less to do with Microsoft leveraging than it does that the makers of "Cactus Data Shield" not only suck as making a protection method, but they can't code their way out of a paper bag either.
-Jayde
What's a sig?
Is the RIAA on drugs, or do they realize that one of their biggest targets, those under the age of 18, are legally not able to be bound to a contract, license or other legal instrument?
Keep this up and they may as well force their resellers to prohibit the sale of music CDs to minors. Boy, wil that help their bottom line! (NOT)
There is another way to "fight the man" and resist forced content, at least if you live in, or have access to a decent sized city. Go see a local band, and support musicians in your town. Most sell their cd's on the cheap, or give them away at shows --- they're just happy to have bodies there in the first place. Even if all the copy protection and content control issues are taken care of, you're still supporting Big Music by buying the CD's they offer to you. They've had control of music and musicians for years, feeding us the hits and bands they want us to hear. If you really want choices, why not try to find some in your neighborhood ?
Wine, music and cinema are the three great creations of humanity. -T'Ian Han
...that the situation with the MP3 CDs will be the same as the drugs, unfortunately.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Exactly! Give that man a cigar, or a spliff, or whatever floats his boat!
I will not buy new CDs unless the company that puts it out is NOT a member of the RIAA. I will not buy DVDs put out by signatories to the MPAA. This way, I do not have to deprive myself of the music and movies I like. It's great.
Here are some places to check out:
http://www.secondspin.com/
http://www.half.com/
And even more importantly: support indie music! Support indie movies! Create your own music/movies, then SHARE AND ENJOY!!! This is the real reason Big Media is quaking in its boots.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.