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.
In other news, 99.92% of all customers don't want their products broken, according to a recent survey.
Please.
They prefer to be called "digitally challenged" CDs.
Thank you.
82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's.
In other news, 18% of consumers are thrilled that their new computer came with a retractible cup-holder.
100% of RIAA and their cronies *want* Crippled CDs. Whose $ do you think politicians are going to listen to?
Michael Loves Me!
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!!
I'm all for respecting peoples' various levels of abilities, but if they think I'm going to build a small ramp to my CD tray just so their crippled CDs can play.. well they've got another thing coming.
Trolling is a art,
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
that constituents don't want corrupted congressmen.
let's see, who do you think will have more influence - a poll that shows roughly 80% of constituents don't want a certain 'feature' (half of those constituents will likely be democrat, half republican. halve that again for the actual numbers that will vote..)
OR
the HUGE amounts of contribution money donated by industry to congressional representatives to ensure their voice is heard fairly.
In order to clear up consumer rights issues, you must first clear up congressional responsibility issues. Stop allowing corporations to be treated as more important citizens than the actual voting citizens first.
You should show at least a little sympathy for them. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Can you imagine what it must be like to spend your whole life stuck in a CD caddie?
IIRC, the people at that debate were involved with music more that normal people would be. This survey is of ordinary people, of the sort that the RIAA will pay attention to. The RIAA has mostly ignored the protests of Slashdot, no matter how vehement, but they are more likely to pay attention to this.
Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention.
The vast majority of voters won't care a bit. Yes, they'd like non-crippled CDs, but that won't sway their voting. People usually vote based on whether someone is Republican or Democratic - the stance the candidate takes on important issues is (depressingly) unimportant to most people.
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
Our extensive research has found that the majority of people like things that work and do not destroy their property if used in a normal manner. Hillary Rosen was reached for comment saying, "These results are flawed. Our focus groups have stated that they enjoy the crippled CDs... at least more than having their pubic hairs pulled out one by one."
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
In Denmark (where I live), it is legal to copy CDs for backup and personal use. Furthermore it is legal to lend your CDs to your friends, who may then copy them. It is even legal to copy CDs from your local library. All this copied music can be encoded as you choose, and as a result all my mp3s are legal.
This, of course, has caused tons of contreversy, but the fact is, that the Danish government has recognized the right of the individual to manipulate, compile and even share legally purchased music...
I am not sure if this harms the music industry, and there has been talk about putting a small price on getting CDs from the library, but for now, it is totally free, and totally legal.
Oh... btw - artist of course get the regular royalties from people getting their CDs at the library... so they DO earn some from it.
- Tha Lamer, Tha Bunny...
from the article (yes, i read it)
d -players .
>The copy-protected CDs limit users options--preventing them from making a copy of the CD to play in their car, for example, as one could with a cassette tape.
this is 100% BS.
Copy-protected CD do NOT stop someone from making a copy of the CD to play in their car, for example.
There is NO CD that can stop you from doing this.
1. Get a 1/8" to 1/8" cable from Radio Shack
2. Plug one end into a CD player that the CD plays in
3. Plug the other end into your computer
4. Hit "play" on the CD player at the same time you hit "record" on your computer's audio recording program.
99% of people will NOT be able to tell the difference when listening to the "unmakable" CD in their car.
They will, also, be able to make mixes.. that is, they can put tracks from MULTPILE "copy protected" circular-shiny-thingies-that-only-play-in-older-c
The only copy-protected music CD is the one that doesn't play in ANY CD player.
There is no way to stop me from copying the information from a media which allows me to hear, see, smell or taste. At least, not a copy which is "close enough" for me not to care that its a "perfect" copy.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
1. Too costly
2. I can get (sometimes) lower quality stuff from free via P2P.
3. I'm afraid that it will be crippled
Combine #1 and #3 and #2 is the only choice left for me.
Some business models are just not meant to survive forever. The Recording Industry should have begun to realize this 4 or 5 years ago, when MP3's first began to become popular, but instead they missed the boat, and decided to fight anyone that got on the boat. Hurt your consumers. Hurt your musicians. Given the fact that many people see the Recording Industry as dishonest (anyone remember the fact that they were recently found guilty of price fixing?), it's no wonder why we don't feel the least bit guilty about downloading from Kazaa, Morpheus, etc.
Nevertheless, most people prefer to be honest, overall. If the music industry starts selling new MP3 songs for $1/song and old ones for $0.25/song, they would likely see their profits higher than ever before, and kazaa would simply become a fringe group of people.
Those questions are all fine and dandy, and I'd vote 'yes' on both. But they're not the same as the parent poster's question OR the question that the article is based on. We're talking copies for personal use here, so your first question is invalid. And I have no problem with them trying to prevent illegal copying and distribution, so long as it doesn't infringe on my legal copying. If their idea of 'prevent illegal copying' is 'prevent all copying' then they are infringing on my rights.
do not read this line twice.
LEAD PIPES!
Come to NYC and drink the tap water that has been sitting in 100 year old lead pipes before it comes out of your faucet. You will LOVE bottled water. Plus, you actually don't get free water unless you are sucking up the scummy lake or river water filled with parasites. Tap water is paid for by taxes. No matter what, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
My, aren't we quite the optimist today?
that distributing mp3s on the net can help sales the same way that radio airtime helps increase an artist's exposure and boosts sales?
Case Study:
My mom comes by my appartment once in a while to say hi, and drop off a basket of fresh home baked muffins (thanks Mom). She hears, and likes the celtic songs playing on the stereo and asks who the artist is.
"It's a mix of artists I downloaded from the internet." I reply. Then burn a copy of the mp3s to a cd, and give it to her.
About a month later she has become hooked on a couple artists and has bought their cd's.
Variations of this scenario have played out a couple times and my mom has complained that every time I give her a CD of MP3s she ends up spending 100 bucks at A&B Sound.
I believe this is a common scenario. People download a bunch of songs and then every once in a while a particular artist strikes the right chord and they look for more music from that artist. The problem with the internet is that there is a lot of junk, and it is nearly impossible to download a whole album from one artist and get decent quality for every song. So many of us go out and by the CD.
I do.
Really. I own two collector's editions of some very obscure music and I'd much rather play the backups than the original disks. So I make exact backups of them and then safely put the originals away.
I don't give them away to friends, I don't share them online through a P2P service, I don't do anything like that. I make a copy for the car and that's that. I want to keep the originals nice and safe; I use a copy for the car and Ogg for the computer.
When I buy a video game that requires me to use the CD, I try and use a copy as well, since I'd much rather risk accidently destroying a copy of my Warcraft III Collector's Edition (yeah, I know, Vivendi=Evil - quiet) then the original disk itself.
If I can figure out how to make a copy of UT2003 I'd do it to so I can let the original disks sit out of harms way (especially with the stupid "must have CD in the drive" shenanigans that often have disks out on top of the case during the burn of another disk or the install of something else - the joys of being a software developer under Windows - *sigh*).
Copy prohibition is only annoying for the legitimate purchases of content. The developers for UT2003 understood that and have admitted it in interviews. It's too bad that the publishing houses haven't figured that out yet and that I'm forced to have the stupid CD in my computer just so UT2003 can be convinced that even with a valid CD key I'm not some evil pirate.
When I buy music, I want to make an Ogg on my computer and a copy for my car. I then leave the disk safely away for potential future re-ripping and encoding to Ogg2 or the next great codec.
When my Dad buys a CD, he uses Roxio Easy-CD Creator to encode it to MP3 and then makes mixes of them for his car. My mother also encodes every CD she wants for easy access (although I don't know exactly what program she uses).
But notice that in these cases, we all legitamitely have the CD! I bought my copy of UT2003 and would be much obliged if Atari would trust me enough to use the game without the CD in the drive.
I have yet to see any of these restrictions doing anything to harm pirates. It just harms the honest consumer. I still buy CDs (a full four this year - and I haven't illegally downloaded anything else - and of those four, only two were through RIAA members) and support the companies that make games I like to play. But I still see the tracks available online, and know people who make copies of "copy protected" CDs simply to prove it's possible. And I'll bet all the real pirates of content and still happily selling their illegal $2 CDs out on the black market, laughing at means that only serve to force the honest user to either spend more money on additional CDs or give up functionality they've come to expect from their computers.
It annoys me.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Well, since the parent post was talking about a hypothetical question, I don't understand why my equally hypothetical questions (both examples of loaded survey questions) are invalid, but you are free to argue as you like. Also, the question asked in the Survey is never explicitely stated, so your argument that my question isn't the same as the one in the survey is correct, but irrelevant.
The questions I asked were posed to demonstrate that surveys tend to use loaded questions. In the case of the parent poster, the question is obviously loaded in favour of the 'consumer's rights' cause. The questions I proposed were obviously loaded in the other direction, and yet phrased in such a way that answering 'yes' doesn't appear disagreeable.
As for my first question. I understand fair use rights. I think they're good. However they do pose a problem, and that is what my first question is pointing to.
And I have no problem with them trying to prevent illegal copying and distribution, so long as it doesn't infringe on my legal copying.
Then you have a problem, as that is exactly what they are trying to do.
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.
A local Best Buy retailer was inundated with a crowd of screaming teenagers and adults who couldn't wait to get their hands on a new CD containing the latest in digital restrictions management technology.
"It's so amazing how far music has come in the last 5 decades.", said 18-year-old Tricia James, clutching her copy of the new CD, a reissue of Three Dog Night's 1970 release, Naturally.
"It's always the consumers who drive initiatives like this.", commente Hilary Rosen, chairperson of the RIAA,at a press conference this Wednesday. "Our customers demand stringent limitations that prevent freeloaders from getting out of paying for another CD if their original store-bought CD becomes too scratched to play, and we deliver them. It adds value to our product."
"And this is just the tip of the iceberg", interjected the MPAA chairman, Jack Valenti. "This same technology can be applied to television, food, and even movies. I can't believe that in the 100-or-so years film has been around, theater operators didn't realize that people have TWO eyes, effectively giving them two identical copies of the same movie, one of which isn't being paid for. We are developing a simple, fair solution for this: either the theater patron will pay double the normal price of a movie, or they will be forced to wear a pirate-like eye patch."
"But aren't pirates the people you are trying to get rid of?" inquired a skeptic reporter from the Philadelphia Observer. Hilary Rosen quickly and conclusively answered this one by saying "Ha ha, yeah, I guess that's a little ironic isn't it? Yaarrgh, maytee!".
However the teenagers at the Grassy Park Best Buy aren't quite THAT optimistic. "Eye patches? I mean I'm all for some more rights management, but it'll be som endeaver to pull it off" said an unsure 15-year-old named Brian Coqueville. "Maybe if they start putting cool corporate logos on the patches, I'll be interested."
Jill Holmsworth, 21 still too giddy after the purchase of her new crippled disc to talk about anything else. "It's like almost an S&M thing for me. You no, like when someone ties you up and you're like No! No more! but deep down inside you love that stable,predictable feeling that the restraints give you. DRM is just like that, only they're DIGITAL restrictions, which are like ten times as good!"
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
"I have already voted, several times..."
RIAA has a tough time of counting the votes. If you buy crippleware, that counts as a "yes" vote for crippleware. If you don't buy crippleware, it's not really a "no" vote for crippleware, because any "no" votes are considered piracy.
An honest comparison would be the sales of otherwise identical albums, selling the crippled and uncrippled side-by-side for the same price. Until that happens, it's really like Saddam running against nobody in the Iraqi "election".
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.
77% of consumers believe they should be allowed to copy CD's for personal use
Yeah but 99% of consumers will be totally unaware whether the CD in their hot little hands at Best Buy is "crippled" or not. Nor will they care enough to put it back if you pointed out the warning label. It's one thing to ask a question and to have people agree in principle...and quite another to gague the extent to which such an agreement might influence actual behavior. My guess is that it won't influence it enough to deter the RIAA from making a good go of crippled CDs.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
If a CD won't rip to MP3 I won't buy it, because I won't be able to listen to it the way I prefer to (on iPod). There are millions others like me.
sulli
RTFJ.
The reason why people buy DVDs even though they can't copy them is because there is little point in copying them for the average member of the public. You can't watch movies while you do something else as you can with music, so there's no need to really copy it; ever heard of a portable DVD player that lets you watch DVDs in high quality on the go? No, neither have I.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
Now, whenever I use that term, most people assume it's a nice way of saying "pirate copy." Thing is, many of my cds are imports or out-of-print obscurities, and I don't want to leave them in the car, where they get exposed to heat, scratching or possible theft. In fact, at $18USD a pop, I don't want to leave my regular cds in the car either, which is why I've got a holder with about 40 CDRs under my seat. It just makes life easier.
Since I'm already paying a hidden fee that the RIAA's been building in to the cost of cds since the PMRC hearings in the '80's, and I'm paying an extra tax built into the cost of the CDR discs thanks to RIAA lobbying, they're already gouging me twice for the privelege of doing something to which I'm legally entitled anyway.
With the advent of these "copy-proof" cds, I have yet to see any mention of either of those taxes going away. As far as I can tell, I'd still be paying both those premiums, even if every cd on the market was 100% copy-proof. God bless America.
THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18