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."

Comments

Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[night_flyer]

at a debate at the Oxford Union.

A brief but detailed summary can be found here: http://tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk/~nick/UnionDebate/

The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[ErikRed1488]

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.

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[macdaddy357]

It is more likely that the 23% don't have a computer, and didn't care enough about the question to really answer it. If 77% of the population will boycott the recording industry, Hilary Rosen and the record company executives will be forced to rethink their views.

Another survey question...

[FreshMeat-BWG]

Do you believe you are entitled to fair use of copyrighted works as provided under US copyright law?

Somehow I venture to believe the respondents might answer somewhere closer to 100%.

How many people actually know about this issue

[looseBits]

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.

No, really?

[thomas.galvin]

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.

18%?

[Talisman]

"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

What consumers want...?

[CathedralRulz]

I don't really think that a consumer poll of what people want to do at no cost is relevant. I am sure if you asked the public if they think there should be no ATM fees, if they should be able to carry their cell phone numbers across different carriers, and if they should be able to download/pirate mucis off the internet without restrictions, most would also assent.

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...

[harks]

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?

Pay for something that's free?

[mirio]

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

Backup?

[adjensen]

Okay, who on Earth thinks that they should "backup audio cds"? Come on, that's a pretty forced issue. I have several thousand audio cds, and while I'd hate to lose any of them, I don't think I'm going to be burning CDR copies of the pile.

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.

...and that's pretty much the point of the RIAA. You don't want to be limited in your use of the medium, but you also see nothing wrong with ripping off the artist. If people didn't have such a cavalier attitude towards the whole issue, copy protection wouldn't have ever come up in the first place.

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?

Re:Backup?

[Jucius Maximus]

"Okay, who on Earth thinks that they should "backup audio cds"? Come on, that's a pretty forced issue. I have several thousand audio cds, and while I'd hate to lose any of them, I don't think I'm going to be burning CDR copies of the pile."

I think audio CDs should be backed up. If I had done proper backups, a certain rare CD which is no longer produced would not have been destroyed when the CD changer machine broke down.

Similarly, would you leave your original CDs in a car? I woudln't. That is why I burn copies of the legally purchased originals and play them in the car.

Not likely to help

[laigle]

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.

My guess

[Dephex Twin]

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.

Just a question...

[gillbates]

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.

Analogue!!!

[djkitsch]

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.

Copy Protected CD - Just Bought One - It sucked

[biffnix]

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