Slashdot Mirror


Singing Cow To Attack CBDTPA

karmawarrior writes "Gateway is launching an advertising campaign against Senator Holling's CBDTPA bill, which, apparently will include its cow mascot encouraging computer users to legally download MP3s and burn their own CDs." Wired also has a story; see Gateway's website for more, as Gateway takes a page from Apple's "Rip-Mix-Burn" playbook.

30 of 468 comments (clear)

  1. Wonder if they're gonna... by Bob+McCown · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...take a page from Chik-fil-a. I can see it now, 2 cows on a ladder, painting a billboard to say "Download more Zepplin"

  2. whatever by CodeMonky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Hollings bill has drawn the support of major recording companies, who believe fast Internet connections and an array of digital devices such as MP3 players and CD burners, as well as Napster and other file-sharing services, were partly responsible for a decline in album sales last year
    Didn't sales go up when napster started and then descreased when RIAA went and shutdown napster?
    Hell I know people who used to get Mp3's so they could decide whether to buy an album who now just get them to piss off RIAA.

    --
    --"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
    1. Re:whatever by pgrote · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bingo.

      That would have been me. My CD collection soared when Napster was online. I would spend hours going from song to song from groups I liked. The songs I found may have been from earlier CDs that I didn't no exist.

      The other thing that Napster did was turn me on to other bands. I would hang out in the chat rooms and ask for suggestions based on what I liked. People were happy to show me other bands. I'd download a tune, listen to it, if I liked it I picked up a couple more. If I liked them all I'd go buy the CD online.

      Why did I buy the CD? Was it for a sense of obligation? Sheepishly I'll tell you it wasn't. It was for the simple fact that I like to rip my songs at 320K. I'd buy the CD, rip the songs to 320K and use the resulting MP3s to listen to.

      That is fair use in my opinion and one that the RIAA wants to take away from me.

    2. Re:whatever by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sounds about right to me.

      What I really see is the RIAA more concerned about *power* then *profit*.

      Example: I went to MP3.com and bought the Megatokyo collection - didn't like all of it, but enough of it was pretty cool (like the Megatokyo theme itself) that I figured the lost cost of $4 of an entire "CD" of MP3's was worth the cost.

      I was taken to a little secure site, and allowed to download to my local computer. From there, I've transferred that music to my iPod, and everybody's happy. Kim Justice gets my $, MP3.com gets my $, and I get some nice little tunes for cheap. And if I want a "real" CD, it's $10.

      Now, look at the RIAA. They still want me to shell our $15-$20 for a CD, which I'm going to burn to MP3's anyway. Why not put up a website where I can either pay $10 for the CD, or $2 per song? I'd go for that - I didn't like the entire Cherry Poppin' Daddies track, but I would have paid $2 for each MP3 track I wanted.

      But no - the RIAA hasn't learned what the Software industry has learned. Go after the big illegal distributors, and leave the little guys alone. If they gave me a way to go get Britney Spears "I'm a Virgin Slut and you Know It" single for $2, I would never feel the need to go online and get it illegally because I knew of a safe, secure, simple way to get it for a cheap ass price.

      But because they are afraid of losing that power, because it might cut into their profit, they won't do it.

      Disney fought the VCR for the same reasons - and makes more money from it now than from all their movies combined. Yet they refuse to learn from their own history with the technology of MP3's.

      Those who don't learn from history aren't doomed to repeat it. They're just doomed.

    3. Re:whatever by Technician · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most recordings I own are ones I got because I heard them from friends in the service on a good system, not radio play. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon just doesn't have the punch on radio as FM just can't do the deep bass properly. FCC regulations in the US limit the carrier deviation permitted by a broadcaster and AFT(Automatic Fine Tuning) on many recievers eliminate the rest of the deep bass by tracking the carriers low frequency instead of permitting the detector to use it. Only a crystal locked systhesized tuner has any hope of capturing the little deep bass a broadcaster my transmit. Any Ace of Bass recording on FM and on a CD will make the diffrence obvious. I liked Dark Side of the Moon enough to get the Mobile Sound Fidelity Labs master edition. (I know i'm telling my age here) It was over twice the price of the standard pressing.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  3. Ok, but PLEEESE not the cow... by josquint · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok i'm all for lobbying against the bill...
    but PLLLLLLLLLLEAAAAAAAASE dont show more of that cow!!!!! I hope Steve from Dell eats it! then gets mad cow disease and dies!!

    1. Re:Ok, but PLEEESE not the cow... by denzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, you're havin' a cow!

    2. Re:Ok, but PLEEESE not the cow... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Would you prefer 'The Brain' in a Cow suit? (The same guy does the voices for Pinky and The Brain)"

      I think one of the few things funnier than this singing cow thing would be akin to what you are suggesting. (Shockwave/Flash Artists, Listen up!)

      There could be a Pinky and the Brain sketch except that it's Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti or even better, Fritz Hollings & Mickey Mouse!

      Hollings: So what are we doing tonight, Mickey?

      M.M.: We're doing what we do every night, Senator! We're trying to take over the United States of America!!

      Hollings: I will introduce the new CBTTPAPCDTPA bill in the Senate to prevent people from listening to their music at work AND at home. MWWAHAHA!

      M.M.: Excellent ... and I will teach the small children that it is always buy a new copy of the music they already own instead of comverting the one they already have if they want to play it at school on their mp3 players.

      Hollings: Soon now ... we will rule the World!!

      M.M.: Long live America!!! Freedom for alll!!

  4. *sigh* by Carmody · · Score: 5, Informative

    While I think this is good news and all...

    Gateway is another large company with an agenda, and ITS agenda happens to coincide with my interests, and so I think it is good news.

    But really, what is the online-privacy and free-speech fight really? It is large corporations fighting each other to see which one gets to write the laws. There is a debate going on, but we are not really part of it, except as the Prize. If a divorcing couple fight over who gets to keep the Car, they aren't really worried about what the Car wants.

    --
    God is real unless declared integer
    1. Re:*sigh* by firewort · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because, it isn't primarily about privacy or Free Speech. It's about the doctrine of Fair Use (17 USC 107) and the doctrine of First Sale (the notion that once something has been sold, the buyer can do as he pleases with the bought item.)

      Gateway wants to retain the freedom to manufacture computers as it pleases. It sees this as potentially hurting their sales when buyers no longer want computers that restrict a buyer's possible uses for the machine.

      Buyers are the prize in one sense, but the greater prize is "who gets to keep and protect their business model" - the content companies, or the computer companies--

      The Car doesn't have free will to stop running reliably if it doesn't like the divorcee who wins custody. The Buyer does.

      --

  5. Strange bedfellows by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is certainly a case of strange bedfellows.. you have the content industry and the US Senate in one corner. In the other corner, you have big tech corporations and.. the EFF? It's understandable that Gateway feels their profit margins are being threatened by this bill. The best way for them to fight it is to drum up public support, which means educating users about what they can do with digital music now (rip MP3s, burn CDs, download music) even if it means hinting to people that yes, you can do illegal stuff right now (but you won't be able to soon).

    Basically, both sides are rallying around a cause in order to drum up support. The recording industry is chanting, "The artists! The artists!" At the same time, tech seems to be saying, "The consumer! The consumer!" But in the end, everyone's just looking out for their own threatened business model.

    1. Re:Strange bedfellows by imadork · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's understandable that Gateway feels their profit margins are being threatened by this bill. The best way for them to fight it is to drum up public support, which means educating users about what they can do with digital music now (rip MP3s, burn CDs, download music) even if it means hinting to people that yes, you can do illegal stuff right now (but you won't be able to soon).

      There's a fundamental difference between the Content Companies' position and the Tech Companies' position. The Tech companies just want to be able to make new technology without government intervention. The Content companies see technology as a threat, and want that threat to be legislated away. The Content companies want their "right to profit" protected by Congress, and they don't care what other industries' "right to profit" gets clobbered in the process. (never mind the fact that no company has a "right to profit" - a company that doesn't profit simply fails!)

      The reason why I think Gateway's support is a good thing is that the entire Copyright debate has, up until now, been framed by the Content Companies in the Media. They frame the debate in terms of what we can't do with copyrighted material. Up until now, anyone who framed it in terma of what we can do has been dismissed as a Commie Pirate Hacker. Seeing Gateway do this almost makes me want to sell my Macs and home-built Linux boxen for a computer in a cow box. almost.

      If Copyright is really supposed to be a two-way street, with the government (also known as the People in the USA) granting certain rights to copyright holders in exchange for public use of their works, then we really should outline what we can do with these works, because my idea of what I can do and Michael Eisner's idea are polar opposites. The role of legislation should be to clarify what we can and can't do, and it's obviously not doing a good enough job! The bill of rights at digitalconsumer.org does, though. The more I think about it, the more I realize that THAT needs to be our next copyright law.

  6. Newsforge has an interesting point of view... by graveyhead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Open Source advocates may find opposing Hollings bill makes for strange bedfellows. It actually suggests that Microsoft might be our ally (gasp!) because of their recently found devotion to streaming media and peer to peer networking.

    --
    std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    1. Re:Newsforge has an interesting point of view... by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't mean to resort to typical Microsoft bashing, but I seriously doubt that Microsoft is going to fight DRM for those reasons. Instead, I think that they'll fight DRM as a government-mandated issue, all the while working on their own Windows-integrated DRM scheme which they'll then license to major media conglomerates.

      If they can pull it off, it's a Win-Win for Microsoft: No government interference on DRM and a near-instant monopoly on DRM due to buy-in from the major content providers.

      --

      Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

  7. Analogy by fiendo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Following the RIAA's logic, I guess car companies that advertise their wares are really encouraging the breaking of speed limits, reckless driving, and driving too fast for conditions when they show advertisements with the disclaimer "professional driver on closed course".

    Do insurance companies then complain that auto manufacturers are behaving irresponsibly? No.

    Should the RIAA be complaining about Gateway's ads? No.

    --
    I went to the city because I wished to live without deliberation.
    1. Re:Analogy by jeremy+f · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An analogy I've always liked is a take on the old Guns-Don't-Kill-People argument.

      It's perfectly legal to buy a handgun. It's perfectly legal to buy bullets. It's perfectly legal to use the two together. It is, however, very illegal to use the two together in certain conditions.

      However, the Government does not mandate the crippling of potential gun owners' hands in order to decrease one's killing capacity. Nor does the government mandate that guns be as inaccurate as possible in order to stem victims being hit by bullets. Our Government says Here. Buy this gun. Do what you want with it. But if you use it to break the law, you're going to jail.

      That's how most of our laws are, right now. Ex post facto -- you break them, you do the punishment. The RIAA/MPAA wants to undermine this situation, and prevent people from breaking the law. We already tried this once.

      It was called prohibition.

      The only way this bill will pass is if people aren't educated about the facts, and don't speak out against it.

      It's incredibly admirable to see companies such as Gateway take a stand against the SSCA/CDCPBUATNAUWHATEVERTHEHELL; it's even moreso to see them want to educate the public on their rights in this area.

    2. Re:Analogy by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's how most of our laws are, right now. Ex post facto -- you break them, you do the punishment. The RIAA/MPAA wants to undermine this situation, and prevent people from breaking the law. We already tried this once.
      It was called prohibition.


      I don't see how prohibition fits this definition. In fact, in the history of American law, there is no analogous legislation I can think of to what they are proposing. The closest thing I can think of is safety regulations (you can't sell a car that doesn't incorporate seat belts, for example). And smokestacks must have scrubbers, apartment buildings must have fire escapes, restaurants must have wheelchair ramps, etc. But all these things are to prevent accidents, pollution, tragedies, etc. I can't think of one that has the sole purpose of preventing you from breaking the law.

      But I don't see why we should just legislate piracy out of existence. We could stop rape with technological barriers, for example, by forcing all women to wear steel chastity belts. And why can't we do this with murder as well? Surely murder is a lot worse than piracy. And a law to mandate prevention of murder would run into problems just as easily as a law like this one that mandates prevention of piracy. We would have to ban guns, knives, axes, boxcutters, chisels, wrenches, and hammers. Buckets would have to be banned too, because you can fill one with water and hold someone's head down in it. You can also kill someone by smashing their head against a wall. Therefore all walls in all houses and buildings must be covered with foam padding to prevent this. But the padding can't be stapled or nailed on, because you can kill someone with staples or nails. And it can't be glued on, because glue is also illegal (you can glue someone's mouth shut and make them starve to death). Oh well, let's just mandate that the hardware industry come up with a solution!

      Of course, like the CBDTPA, a murder-preventing law like this one would contain a meaningless provision saying, in effect, "this law shall have no effect on lawful behavior." That way, any letter a Senator receives that complains about the bill's restrictions on lawful behavior (i.e. fair use) will go straight into the trash. Keep this in mind when you write your anti-CBDTPA letters.

  8. I saw this last night by SkyLeach · · Score: 4, Funny

    On NBC while watching the Great Race. It was funny as hell.

    My wife rolled her eyes and it gave me the perfect chance to let her know *why* they were running that commercial.

    Now that Gateway has clearly chosen sides, I think we can start selling tickets to the battle royall:

    "In this corner weighing in at a puny few billion in stated revenues is MPAA, AOL/Time Warner/CNN, RIAA and the BSA. In the Far corner, weighing in at an incalcuable sum is Gateway, IBM, Sun, Dell, Apple and all the people. This ain't really gonna be a long fight folks so don't blink."

    --
    My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
  9. Mahatma Ghandi knows all about this: by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 5, Funny

    From Hollings's Point of View:

    "First, they attack you.
    Then they laugh at you.
    Then they moo at you.
    Then they win."

  10. They are allies, not friends by ThePlague · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where interests coincide, support. Where conflict, oppose. It's very simple. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys", just different people and groups of people with varied agendas. They do not have to be exactly like you, and insisting that unless they tow your line all the way down the line they are enemies is rather childish.

    Hell, I've got about zero respect for Gateway products. They have effectively filled the consumer space crappy OEM PC manufacturer vacated by Packard Bell. But, at least they realize that stringent hardware requirements mandated by the government are not in their best interests. As this conicides with mine, yeah I'll support them by pointing out the issues they are bringing to light to the less tech-savvy. Doesn't mean I'll be recommending their products any time soon.

  11. Finally? by Arcturax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apple computer realized this a good while back. Steve Jobs himself even came out and said that the RIAA is wasting its time and money on this as no matter what they do, hard core pirates will find a way to steal music.

    Gateway is only following Apple's lead, just the way the rest of the PC industry often follows their lead. Granted this is a good thing this time :)

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  12. More FUD from the RIAA by thesolo · · Score: 5, Informative

    "If only they would devote a little bit of the millions of dollars they're spending on this ad campaign to help stop illegal downloading ... but that wouldn't help them sell more CD burners, would it," said Hilary Rosen

    <sarcasm>Yes, because all CD burners are sold to make discs full of illegally downloaded music!</sarcasm>

    Maybe if the RIAA would price their CDs more reasonably, actually give money to their artists, and stop the overwhelming and unnecessary homogenization of the music which they promote to (read: push on) the public, people wouldn't be so inclined to download music.

    1. Re:More FUD from the RIAA by rudedog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More importantly, where does the RIAA get off on expecting other companies to spend money to solve the RIAA's piracy problem? If a company sells products that allow consumers to partake in legal activities, why shouldn't that company be able to advertise those products? More importantly, why does the RIAA seem to think that they should be able to prevent that?

  13. What ticks me off... by s390 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is the broad adoption of Jack Valenti's misnomer "piracy" to denote "unauthorized copying." It's an improper usage of an emotionally loaded word and it unfairly biases the audience, albeit in a subtle way, every time it's used, even by journalists and others in support of Fair Use. It's like the popular but WRONG equation of "hacker" with "cracker" - which is also gleefully promoted by all those authoritarian a**holes who would like nothing better than to enslave us all to the RIAA and MPAA.

    Real "piracy" is rape, pillage, and murder on the high seas or some remote godforsaken mountain pass or desert wadi. It still happens in the seas around Indonesia and Malaysia, and in the Caribbean, and it still happens on land in places like Africa and continental Asia. To equate sampling a piece of music by MP3 prior to deciding to purchase it with "piracy" is all so over-the-top hysterical that it would be merely comical if it hadn't gotten widespread currency.

    Jack Valenti and Hillary Rosen should have their mouths washed out with soap for hammering on this to the point that even their opponents adopted their skewed language.

  14. i have a quote too by krb · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "If only they would devote a little bit of the millions of dollars they're spending on this ad campaign to help stop illegal downloading ... but that wouldn't help them sell more CD burners, would it," said Hilary Rosen"
    here's mine :
    "If only the music industry would devote a little bit of millions of dollars they're spending on lawyers and buying senators to update their distribution model into the 21st century... but that wouldn't let them fuck the artists as much would it?"

    nuff said.

    --
  15. We refused to be *cowed* by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 5, Funny
    Gatway is saying:

    We refuse to be COWED

    So the content industry should ruminate on this. Find some udder solution. Maybe tipping. Or a place where the grass is greener. And especially no bullshit.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

  16. RIAA's Comments ( and why we don't like them) by phoenix_orb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If only they would devote a little bit of the millions of dollars they're spending on this ad campaign to help stop illegal downloading ... but that wouldn't help them sell more CD burners, would it," said Hilary Rosen, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.

    Now let me get this straight? The RIAA, MPAA and others (through the Disney Senator) want to take away many of the rights that hardware manufacturers have in building their systems. And now they want these same companies to spend money to help keep the horrible music system in place? At least movie stars make money. 99% of artist's don't. Read This article [Salon.com] by Courtney Love if you want to know why I personally don't like the RIAA.

    I applaud Gateway for this, and I really hope that this helps bring them from the brink of going out of buisness. I plan on supporting them through corporate purchases (which I oversee). I hope supporting companies who endorse (publically) our ideals will win in the long run

    --
    Blah Blah Blah.
  17. WMAs considered harmful. by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    An email I just sent to Gateway....


    From: <email blocked>

    To: webmaster@gateway.com

    Subj: Your "protect your freedoms" campaign - WMA's considered harmful...

    I am very glad to see Gateway supporting our freedoms to use our computers how we see fit with the http://gateway.com/home/deals/offers/music/dmz.sht ml website. However, for those of us who choose to be free from Microsoft, you site is a little descrimitory - how about having MPEGs of the movies, as well as WMAs, so that Mac or Linux users can also enjoy the content?

  18. Great quote in the Wired article: by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "If only they would devote a little bit of the millions of dollars they're spending on this ad campaign to help stop illegal downloading ... but that wouldn't help them sell more CD burners, would it," said Hilary Rosen, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.

    I see, it would seem that the RIAA is still of the mindset that the tool maker is responsible for the use of the tool.

    There is no way that the tech industry is going to voluntarily cripple its equipment on just the media companies' say so.

    Thankfully there has been NO support for the SSSCA/CD...whatever they're calling it today. Not that that means it's dead.

    Rosen and company should realize that forced DRM will pan out in one of 2 directions. Either it will be defeated by some 13 year old in a matter of minutes, or it (if *unbreakable* =P )will annihilate the market for new equipment and create a huge aftermarket for pre-DRM equipment.

    Both are failures for the media folk, but the second option promises to make an already ugly looking ecomony even worse. And potentially turn millions of people into felons for effectively sitting still.

    There are laws already in place to handle every issue they keep bringing up, but appearantly it won't be enough until they can force feed use everything.

    If they want to kick the piracy issue I have a suggestion for them. PUT SOME PORDUCTION QUALITY INTO THEIR PRODUCTS! I'm not talking about the quality of the music itself, but everything that goes along with it. Case in point, the soundtrack for "Queen of the Damned". Retailing at the local Walmart for $13.99. I think it a pretty good soundtrack, personally. However, the packaging and liner notes are TERRIBLE! No lyric sheet, tracks aren't even listed in order as they are on the disk, it's just a simple tri-fold. How about a little something more for my $14? Seriously, give me one good reason why I shoud not just d/l the tracks that I want, aside from the (il)legallity issue. There is NOTHING, no added value whatsoever in purchasing the actual CD.

    This is primarily their greatest problem, they fail to see that they are selling more than simply music, and until they realize it, 'pirating' (I still hate that term) looks very appealing.