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."
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.
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
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
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 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.