Slashdot Mirror
Gartner Survey: Consumers Don't Want Crippled CDs
robkill writes "According to GartnerG2, 77% of consumers believe they should be allowed to copy CD's for personal use in another device. 82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's. Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention. More details can be found in this PC World article."
at a debate at the Oxford Union.
A brief but detailed summary can be found here: http://tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk/~nick/UnionDebate/
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I think it's sad that the RIAA already has 23% of the population convinced that they shouldn't be able to make a copy of a CD they own for personal use.
I was not touched there by an angel.
Somehow I venture to believe the respondents might answer somewhere closer to 100%.
I wonder what percentage of Joe Users out there have heard of the DMCA or have any idea about the war over fair use. Unless the public becomes educated on the problem, Senator Hollings has nothing to fear from the voter.
Lord, bless my users that they may stop being such fucking idiots!!
Here's a nice tall glass of "no kidding" to the good people at Gartner. I wish I could have seen the questionaire:
Do you prefer:
1. CDs that you can listen to however/whenever you want
2. CDs that destroy your CD-ROM's firmware
Here's a wakeup call for Hollywood and all of the Software firms: when an American buys something, even a CD, movie, or program, he/she thinks that they now own it. that's how it's always been. That's how it still is with books. That's how it's going to be with your products once people get tired of your DRM antics.
Thomas Galvin
"82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's."
I'm hoping the other 18% checked the 3) I don't understand this question option.
If 18% of the public believes they shouldn't have the right to back-up their own software, we should begin to panic.
Then again, 18% of the public probably believes in Santa Clause, including G. W. Bush, the Lesser.
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
Why doesn't G2 survey the MPAA, RIAA, and their legislative lackeys to see how many of them care about what their customers/constituents want or believe?
- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
Polls are not news; information that moves polls is. There was a day when journalists shunned polls, now they are the basis for a story.
The real question is whether or not people would buy a CD that was restricted. Sure, no one wants it, but will people skip over buying CDs which are copyprotected?
For those out there (RIAA, MPAA, congress) that believe people refuse to pay for something they could otherwise get for free, I have but two words:
BOTTLED WATER
One thing that the synopsis fails to include is the like:
60 percent said they should be able to give copies of CDs to members of their families.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the RIAA and their heavy handed tactics, nor of the major media companies that are wringing every last dime out of the transaction at the expense of the artist and the consumer. But, by the same token, if no one is buying cds anymore, what impetous is there for your favourite band to bother making one?
There's still two major problems.
1. Ignorance. Most people don't know that there are people in Congress being payed to take those rights away from them. That would involve complex actions like searching out information (hey, it's not like the major media outlet owned papers are covering this issue in depth). It might even require the average American to read at a high school level, and we all know that's a pipe dream. And thus they won't find it out till it's too late. Which leads into..
2. Apathy. Nobody stands up for their rights any more. Especially when it's a little thing like copying a CD. Then having chips implanted into their TVs to prevent them from deviously recording the show they'll be missing while working the second job to pay for all their new compliant electronics. Then having to pony up tax money for the much needed "Buy Jack Valenti a gold plated limo every six months" fund when even those measures don't save the entertainment industry from the greed, idiocy, and fraud of those running it. Then having the FBI wiretap all communications, open all mail, and sneak hidden cameras into every home to make sure no piracy is occuring. Well, that's the ones who don't get drafted for our wars to fight terrorism in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Western Europe, China, Mexico, Canada, and New York.
The way I see it, those people who said they don't want to be able to do these things are mostly people who don't care. Not too computer savvy, and/or not too excited by music in general.
"Do you think you should be able to make backups of your music CDs to other media?"
"Well uh... no, I really don't care about that."
I'm sure there are some who have succombed to the propaganda, but probably not all, or even most, of the "no" people.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Of course, if You really cared about this issue, You'd not sit only at home and hope that politicians listen, but You'd get out there and support those who are fighting for You by joining the EFF.
Fight back!
Election is coming. Are those that don't want to pay taxes voting for the folks that raise them? Vote libertarian if you have a chance!!
Why should the artist, who performs a song once, get paid every time someone wants to hear that song? They expend no additional effort regardless of how many times a CD is copied or their music is played.
Consider programming, for example. Most programmers are paid to produce something, and very few, if any, receive royalties every time their programs are run. Why should it be any different for "artists" - who like programmers, are creative, but considerable better compensated considering the actual amount of work they do.
Notice that I'm not saying that performers shouldn't be compensated, but rather that they aren't entitled to be compensated for doing nothing. I have no problem with paying to see an artist performing live, because in that case, they are actually working. But how am I depriving an artist of their "fair share" if I copy a CD that I wouldn't have paid for in the first place? What if I don't buy CD's, but rather just listen to the radio? Am I stealing then? (I enjoy the music, but I didn't pay for it!) What's the difference?
What it comes down to is plain and simple greed. The record companies and artists want to be compensated for doing nothing.
I'm not saying that a musician's life isn't hard, but no one forced these people to become musicians. A career in music is not an entitlement. If you can't make a living as a musician, actually performing live, then maybe you shouldn't be in the business.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I know this is the digital age and all, but as I think someone pointed out above (albeit rather convoulutedly), 99% of the time you can't tell the difference between an analogue and a digital copy.
Only difference being, rip the CD on "Analogue Input" mode. Easy! If everyone did this instead of getting pissed about it, the RIAA would possibly get bored and wander off...and maybe design CDs glued into the jewel case or something.
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
Regardless of what legistlation is passed in the US, all other countries in the world have to deal with the same issues. Some of them will follow an example set by the US, some will follow the rules of the marketplace, but there will be countries where consumer's options will be severely limited.
This kind of copy-protection schemes are starting to emerge in Europe as well; just yesterday I saw a CD by Ian Van Dahl clearly marked as non-playable on PCs and Macs. I didn't buy the particular CD to test the validity of these claims, but that's down to personal choice rather than a market trend. I do not know whether the sales of the record have been impaired in any way.
Funny, though; the fact that it's unplayable in PCs and Macs is not explained in any way. It is left almost as an anomaly with the CD, with no symbol of value that would express increased protection, value or proof of originality. All it has is a little black box stating the obvious problem.
I imagine something like a "original audio recording - for stereo equipment only" holographic label or something a bit more upbeat could have given a better message to the consumers. On the other hand maybe we should be glad they didn't think of this?
Jouni
Jouni Mannonen | Game Designer, Consultant
As it is, the songwriter royalty system is based almost entirely on radio airplay "surveys". Voting rights in ASCAP and BMI are allocated based on royalties received, and as part of the membership agreement, artist agree not to challenge the system for determining royalties, further empowering the "haves" and disenfranchising the "have-nots". Add that to the creative accounting used by the record companies to recoup their advances from the artist royalties, and most artists never receive a royalty check. Artist royalties are the RIAA's smokescreen. The RIAA wants to maintain a tight control on the distribution of music, and maintain their power base.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
Just bout the new Donnas CD (Spend The Night) from Amazon.com. Pre-ordered it, even! And when it arrived, I found it would not even fire up in my Dell 8100 with a CD-RW drive! I wasted the money! What really sucks is that there was NO WAY for me to tell it was copy-protected BEFORE I ordered it. Otherwise, I simply wouldn't have bought it. The CD played ok on someone else's computer with no CD-RW, but on MY laptop, it simply wouldn't even run. Couldn't get it to play at all.
I'm returning it now for a refund, but I'm out the shipping charge. So, screw Atlantic records for perpetrating this crap on me as a consumer. I'm really tempted to rip the tracks using Audiograbber (which reads the copy-protected CD's audio tracks just fine, thank you very much!) and distribute them just out of spite. I spit on such tactics - pah!
A disgruntled customer,
Joe G.
Bishop, CA
Don't Die Wondering
It seems to be that more and more in today's society, people don't matter. MONEY matters. The RIAA is doing anything and everything it can to make more money, and politicians are taking 'contributions' (which to me consitutes bribery in many cases) to introduce/help push/vote for legislation that screws people while allowing companies to make more money.
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
is their assertion that CD prices have to remain at their current levels because of the costs associated with marketing CDs. Ummm....if a given bands fans know a CD is coming out, why is there a need to market it? Tells me that the RIAA spends too much $$$ pushing crap on us that we wouldn't want to listen to any way, and they're making the rest of us pay for acts that didn't make the cut. WHy should I have to chip in an extra couple bucks to buy a CD when that money will go towards the failure that is about to become of The Ketchup Song?
I do agree that municipal water leaves much to be desired since it's quite often clorinated/ozoned to kill any critters in it and may have flourine added to give people nice healthy teeth. Bottled water does taste much better, but if you have a filter for the tap water it's just as good.
subsolar