Slashdot Mirror
Playing CDs a Privilege Not A Right
Brett writes "Tommi Kyyrä, of IFPI Finland has said that being able to play music on a Linux or Apple computer is a privilege not a right, and that those that can't because of DRM'd CDs should just go out and buy a CD player. Is switching the debate to rights and privileges really where they want to go when we're talking about something we pay for?" From the article: "If the public and 'their' politicians believe that the entertainment industry is on the verge of collapse, they'll be much more likely to accept restrictions on use of content that they've paid for. For this reason, most industry talking heads keep their comments in check when talking about DRM schemes, but from time to time we've seen people truly speak their mind."
According to TFA, his translated quote is:
Funny, I was just thinking something kind of similar, but slightly different:
Now, we need to understand that listening to music in your car or through your home stereos is an extra privilege. Normally, people listen to music on your computer. If you are a car or home stereo user, you should consider purchasing a regular CD player.
Given that when I pay for a CD, I'm paying for the music, not the plastic and mylar, can any RIAA person please explain to me why my position is any less valid than Tommi Kyyrä's?
Re: the "go out and buy another CD player", I wonder what Philips' stance will be on all of this. Haven't they denied the right of DRM and copy-protected "CD" distributors to actually call them CDs? Call the new "machines" what they are, DRM/copy-protection capable CD-like players.
All I can say is I am sorry for the next generation of people who are introduced to the entertainment marketplace. We who have so long been able to enjoy CDs as they were originally defined, CDs that would play in our cars, would play in our home entertainment centers, and on our computers. It seems that era may be ending. Sigh.
I suggest a meme, (hate that word)... start calling "DRM'ed CDs" something else. Say, maybe non-standard-and-playable-only-on-certain-player-t hingies resembling CDs.
Yet another sordid chapter in the DRM saga...the insulting attempt to redefine our relationship to content we have purchased as a "privilege."
Here's the actual quote from Tommi Kyyrä himself:Tommi, don't you dare try to tell me that playing content I've purchased is a 'privilege'. I paid for that content, and I have the right to enjoy it. If your ridiculous DRM schemes get in the way of my legitimate use of my content, it's up to you and your cronies to remedy that, rather than try to redefine my rights as 'privileges'.
By the way, Tommi, your site seems to be down, but don't worry....I guess having a web site that's up all the time is a 'privilege' as well.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
From http://www.musexfinland.fi/index.php?page=members& id=7
"IFPI Finland's goal is to ensure a favourable operational environment for the recording industry in Finland. This is achieved by improving recording industry's cultural political status, securing effective legislation to protect the recording industry's interests and improving the competitive environment."
I hope that's a joke. Flamebait rantings like this one can't possibly be helping them "improve the recording industry's cultural political status."
Well, maybe they wouldn't be on the verge of collapse if they weren't a bunch of greedy a$$hats. they make Billions of dollars every year and yeah, they're gonna go out of business, they won't be able to keep their 6 houses, private jets, yachts, etc... boo hoo.
First Post.
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
those that can't because of DRM'd CDs should just go out and buy a CD player.
And they wonder why there is so much animosity directed at their cartel from consumers.
Trolling is a art,
No, it's not inherently a right.
I'm suprised the RIAA isn't charging 25 cents a song for DRM "enabled" music, and subsidizing the cost of DRM players. That'll encourage market penetration, and once they've got a certian portion of the market unable to play anything else, they will finally have their freedoms.
Not like their employees (Congress) will do much to stop them, at least for a while.
Music industry execs need to remember this one simple thing: When they sell their music to us, only one side is bringing any money to the transaction. At the end of the day, it they don't offer something consumers will pay for, they will sell none of them. I don't own a Windows PC so I won't be purchasing any of their WMA only crap. Period.
This discussion is very similar to the Jobs v. Music Industry debates over $0.99 song pricing and Jobs is right on the money - I am not going to pay more than a dollar for a song when I can get it for free using another application that is also on my computer.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Customer sales for the recording industry is a privelege not a right. Profit is a privelege not a right. Just cause the recording industry has a failed business model and crappy product, doesn't mean government should create a 'right' for them to be profitable.
[Insert pithy quote here]
It's also my RIGHT not to buy that DRM'd crap.
WASTE - The Secure P2P
Maybe he has a point. After all, it must be wrong since it feels so right.
Best Windows Freeware
From the redbook standard information from wikipedia:
Recently, some major recording publishers have begun to sell CDs that violate the Red Book standard for the purposes of copy prevention, using systems like Copy control, or extra features such as DualDisc, which features a CD-layer and a DVD-layer. The CD-layer is much thinner, 0.9mm, than required by the Red Book, which stipulates 1.2mm. Philips and many other companies have warned them that including the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo on such non-conforming discs may constitute trademark infringement; either in anticipation or in response, the long-familiar logo is no longer to be seen on many recent CDs.
Any company can make any product and sell it for how much they like, but if they are going to make a "CD" then it must be a CD, which in turn will play on a Mac or Linux or any CD player with the CD logo on it. If a company wants to create something else, say SACD, DVD-A, it must be labeled and sold as such, and not as a CD.
End of story.
I've GOT alternatives... MP3 player and an online store. Take that away from me? MP3 player and my local p2p app. Shut that down? I can still get vinyl AND cassette tapes. Put two bowls of tomato soup in front of me... one looks great, but I am only allowed to eat it with chopsticks, and the other is a bit cold, but I can eat it with a spoon or whatever I want... guess which one Ill take.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
... the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Er, I mean in my quote, "Normally, people listen to music on their computers. If you are a car or home stereo user, you should consider purchasing a computer."
Damn, those people who don't hit Preview and re-read their messages before posting!
Well, golly, one of the RIAA members just happens to produce CD players as well -- Sony.
Something about a monopoly is ringing in the back of my head...not sure what that's all about....
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Owning a CD is not a right, but being able to play back what I have bought legally and expect to use legally on my computer is a consumer expectation which should be granted by any company who wants to stay in business.
People are pirating music more because of stupid comments like these!
That's pretty cut and dry. They won't give me a product that I want, I will not buy it. It's not as if music and movies are the only form of entertainment out there. I can live without them, but they can't live without me, and if they all starve, I don't care and I don't have to care. Sorry music industry.
This is my sig.
No, seriously, I mean it. Fuck them and their stinking business model that's based around parasiting off talent and screwing the pressure down on young artists to be as commercially successful as possible. BTW I speak as someone who worked at a music publisher for a couple of years. I thought I was pretty cynical when I started there, by the time I left I was a physical and emotional wreck (this was partly caused by my trying to live on 140 quid a week in Notting Hill Gate [expensive & flash area of West London] and partly by trying to reconcile their world view with my own and manage to build myself a career in the industry that didn't involve fucking artists over, lying, cheating, and generally behaving like a dick. (This was over ten years ago, by the way. )
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Because CDs, by definition, follow a standard, and play on all devices that conform to that standard.
He should say "Playing music on a Mac from silver coasters that happen to play music in some CD players isn't a right."
is a privilage, not a right.
I think whats happening is natrual, people who are in the music business who don't make music are starting to get cut out and are unnecessary for the dissemanation of music. Their kneejerk reactions aren't helping themselves either.
Basically, if you buy a DRMed CD, return it to the store that you got it at and tell them its defectictive. It will make people and companies who do that shit have sluggish sales.
peace, Snoobs
It has consistently been my position that technologies like "Digital Rights Management" are less about preventing piracy, and more about finding new ways to nickel-and-dime customers.
This is so true. Also, one thing that doesn't come up a lot is how much of this money actually makes it back to the artists? Artists have to constantly audit the record labels to get their fare share. They're not just nickel-and-diming the customers, they're nickel-and-diming the artists on the other end.
Bradley Holt
DRM'd non-CDs also don't play in car CD players. So this isn't just some 5-10% of computer users complaining, it's a heck of a lot of the world!
Luckily, for the only non-CD I purchased, I had access to a Windows box with EAC on it to rip the CD and then burn a new copy, just so that I had the "right" to listen to some music I'd paid for. I will NEVER buy an encoded CD again. If that means missing out on some music, then so be it.
Dork.
Bus error in your favour. Collect 200kB
Whether playing an audio CD on a computer is a privilege or a right in Finland depends on Finnish law.
No?
Then perhaps Mr. Kyyrä should keep his nose out of other people's brand choice purchases.
Anyways...
I don't go around ripping CD's and sharing them with my friends, in spite of the fact that I not only can, but in fact actually *DO* go around regularly ripping CD's (and DVD's too, for that matter) that I've legally purchased, so that I can play them on my laptop.
I do not in any way shape or form distribute the content that I obtain, and according to good old Copyright Law, copying for personal and private use does not and can not in any way be considered copyright infringement, regardless of the DMCA or other DMCA-like laws.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
... customers will no longer take this shit and will stop buying CDs.
...
wait a minute
Stance 1: They're selling you a CD.
If you buy a CD, you buy the limitation that it only plays on limited devices. You can't play it on your phonograph or eight-track, and it may not work on hardware that isn't Trusted. However, anything you can do with it (under fair use) you must be able to. Play it on your walkman, with audio out to the audio in of your linux box, and wash it through Audacity to get it on an MP3, if you like. You have that right because it's YOUR CD, and format-shifting is fair use.
Stance 2: They're selling you a limited license to listen to a collection of music.
If you buy a license to music, you have the right to hear that music. Copy protection that prevents your accessing your licensed music on devices that are Audio CD compatible (note the little "compact disk" logo on all standards-meeting CD playback devices) is an infringement on your rights to access your licensed property.
They don't want to sell you a CD, because they lose control over it, but they are not letting you use the material you are legally licensed to when you 'buy' a CD's content for personal use. It'd be nice if they'd make up their minds beyond "give us your money, and up yours."
So, if I buy a CD and can't rip the music to my computer due to the industry copy protection, is it then legal for me to download that same music using a P2P device? If I'm truly buying access to those songs (regardless of the medium of delivery), do I then have the rights to those song regardless of the means I am then forced to procure it in the medium I then want? Why wouldn't I be?
Hrm. Having your CDs bought by the public isn't a right, either. It's a privilege, too, and one that asshats who take this stance might have revoked.
After all, according to our RIAA, it's a license, anyway, right?
Check out my sysadmin blog!
So, AIUI, if I don't buy another CD player to listen to the music I've already bought then... every musician, composer and producer will decide to go and do something else with their life because the record won't exist to support them?
Remind me when hell freezes over...
If the RIAA's licensing rules get as crazy as Microsoft's (who charge hundreds of dollars for commodity technologies from the 60s (operating systems and databases)), that would be the best thing that could ever happen to alternative music licensed under creative commons licenses.
IMHO DRM means Do Remind Me... not to support their products. It is our dollars that give these gentlemen the means to prop up antiquated business plans by manipulating the patent system. I have rights and I am happy to stipulate theirs; and happily say no thank you to their DRM'd offerings.
Say hello to my little sig.
Me paying for music at all is a priviledge for them and not a right. They want to control me? Fuck them.
DRM is a pipe-dream. As long as I can get music out of my speakers I can record the sound and distribute it online. Most CD drives you install in your computer come with an analogue-out port which you can connect to your sound card, and all you have to do to rip past the copy hinderace is record from that source. IIRC newer SoundBlaster cards come with a native function that lets you record exactly what you hear from your speakers.
All rites reversed 2010
The Compact Disc license means that the disc must be compatible with any licensed CD-rom player. That includes computer CD-roms. This legal position has slapped down DRM in the past and is likely to slow adoption of DRM for years, until a new format has broad appeal.
Long live backward compatibility!
No, they have it the wrong way around.
The record companies receiving my money is a privilege they have - not a right.
The moment they make music that I can't play on my chosen CD playing device (whether that be a car stereo, a non-Windows computer or my old CD player that may not understand non-RedBook CDs) they lose the privilege of receiving my money.
The moment they put music for download that I cannot trivially remove the DRM from is the moment that I stop buying music from them online.
I still buy regular CDs and music from iTMS because the former I can play on all my machines, and the latter I can trivially remove the DRM with JHymn. I buy unencrypted MP3s from places like Magnatune for the same reasons. I'm happy to buy DVDs because the DRM is trivially removed and I can put the movie I bought on my server so I can play it on whatever device is most convenient. The moment I can no longer do this is the moment I stop buying DVDs.
If in 20 years time, I cannot get music/video I can play on any of my chosen devices, so be it - I won't buy music or movies. I don't need them - I can do other activities instead such as read a website, go to the pub with my friends (and see a local live band), or go on a bike ride. I can happily get by without entertainment on plastic disks. The record companies must understand that mine and many others music purchases are discretionary spending they do NOT have a right to have - instead they have the privilege of having. A privilege that can be easily revoked.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Idiot.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Fuck you. I bought the CD. It is mine to do with as I please. If you DRM it, all you are doing is forcing me aquire it by other means - and you lose a sale.
Obviously then, by extention using Linux or Apple to load your MP3 player is not a right either, and Windows (curiously not mentioned, given that it is the most common OS) is granted a monopoly in playing music in his country now.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The title covers it all.
...and the only thing that will save it is DRM and the reduction of
my rights, then
LET THE INDUSTRY COLLAPSE!!!!!
Something better will fill the vacuum.
Good thing we don't all live in Finland. Remind me why anyone outside of Finland should care about this?
What a pretentious jerk. People actually buying their music is what gives them the privilege to exist as a business. I wonder why some people in the industry seem to think it's going to help them treat their customers like idiots or otherwise. Their idea that they have the last say in who controls what is an illusion, because it's the consumer who ultimately has control over them.
What makes Finland think it can do what the US could not?
This will just cause more computer users to get Bit torrented versions.
Destruction of Rights on Media
Code. Writing. Writing Code. Writing in general. What? They aren't -that- differnet.
Privilege, not a right, eh? Well, I guess I'll just have to stop buying CDs. How do you like them apples, huh? I guess I'll have to start spending money on something else, like books or my girlfriend. How do you like that? Oh, I've already been doing that? Well... alright then....
It sounds like they're bestowing us some great honor, to be able to listen to crap.
If the public and 'their' politicians believe that the entertainment industry is on the verge of collapse, they'll be much more likely to accept restrictions on use of content that they've paid for.
Nah. We don't really like you enough. Maybe if the entertainment industry does collapse, maybe then we'll realize. But before? Nah. You keep it up with your doomsday predictions... I don't see Universal Studios or Paramount closing up shop, and I don't care about your problem.
Synergy is your friend
Eventually we'll just stop buying their crap and they'll go under. Good riddance. Let's face it, this is ENTERTAINMENT, and hardly required for life on the planet. Ask somebody fleeing the hurricanes how far up on their priority list the latest Britney song is.
We're the only people who notice this stuff now, but when enough average people find out they can't get what they paid for they *will* complain to congress-critters. All the lobbyist money in the world can't supplant every vote in their districts.
In the meantime, maybe we should all buy Sen. Orrin Hatch's "contribution" to music and then complain to him about the restrictions on our freedom to listen where we want and maybe he'll ease up.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
The public interest is in making information as widely available as possible. Copyright is a temporary restriction of the public's right to do as they wish with their own property. The goal of copyright is not to reward authors for writing, but to reward authors for publishing so that their works will eventually end up in the public domain.
When I buy a book, a CD, or a DVD, it becomes my property. I may do as I wish with my property, with a few *temporary* restrictions, such as selling copies.
If music, movie, or software companies don't want me to own their products, then they shouldn't sell them. Rent or lease, and set whatever conditions that you like. But sell means a transfer of ownership. Stop attacking ownership!
I stopped buying CDs long ago, not as a protest, more because of convenience. My computer IS my home entertainment system. My computer IS my music player, my video/DVD player. I don't want to walk across the room to find a CD, listen to three songs, then walk across the room again to change CD. That's history. If they don't make CDs that will play in all computers, well who cares - certainly not me. CDs mean NOTHING to me anymore.
Waiting for you by the bridge
What's so bad about the collapse of the entertainment industry? Aside from all the useless middlemen, it's a win for everyone. It's not as if the artists will stop recording music or making movies because some marketers got canned.
I believe that I will
exercise my privilege
to not buy your disc.
We should remind him that the money they collect from us is a "privilege" and not a "right." Perhaps we should remove this "privilege" from them for a little while.
Or (let's switch countries), how about we let the RIAA know that we give the RIAA the "privilege" of spending the money we pay them. If they wish to spend it on lawsuits, perhaps they should go make the money in some other way. Spending money I gave them to use in a potential lawsuit on me is a privilege and not a right.
Crippled Audio Discs
these labels and their cartels are not posting monetary losses year after year, they are in fact still extremely profitable and are making tons of cash. hell, they seem to be opening new and highly lucrative revenue streams all the time [eg ringtone downloads].
until these organizations actually lose substantial money, i am not interested in their arguments about why they need to castrate all technology.
it is not your industry that is in jeapordy, but my culture.
that is all.
sum.zero
1. My computer is my CD-Player. It should play any Compact Disk. To be a Compact Disk or CD it must follow that standards laid out by Phillips. If it does not the it must be clearly labeled.
2. Any company that uses any method that may intentionally or unintentionally cause confusion as to if the said music storage medium is or is not a Compact Disk is guilt of a violating the trademark and unfair business practices. IE like Lindows vs Windows. I can see far more customer confusion caused buy a music disk displayed with real CDs in a store with no clear label than would ever be caused by the confusion of Lindows and Windows.
3. If I purchase an item their is the assumption that I may do with the item what I want.
So if I can make the disk play in my computer then that is fine. If can rip the disk then I can put it on my music player. If I want to use it to tile my living room so be it.
4. If I do not own the CD but instead just licencing it. Said company must get a signed license from me and keep it on record.
5. If I just own a license to the music and I am not allowed to back it up then the providing company must replace the media forever if it ever fails or is damages. Since I forbidden to protect my investment to protect the Music provider the music provider must protect it for me at no cost and forever.
I can live with rules. I think it is time to stop supporting the record companies.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The CD should be clearly stamped: "This audio disk will only function on home or car stereo equipment", and the price for that more limited capability (versus the non-DRM product) should be correspondingly adjusted. Either that, or leave the price the same, and let the consumer decide whether the reduced capability is still worth it.
Also, they probably should not be allowed to place the "CD-ROM" logo on it, because the disk does not conform with the Phillips Audio CD-ROM standard.
If comments like the ones in the article indicate the way the music industry wants to play the issue, then they should be legally forced to conform with the implications, and inform their customers properly about the product. The vendor can put what ever terms they like on the product, but they must disclose them. To do less is false advertising. People thought they bought an audio CD-ROM, instead they got some other variety of restricted audio disk that only looks similar.
I have an original SONY 5 disc changer from 1980-something. It works great and I don't intend to buy another one until it breaks, which should be a long time. Any music that doesn't play on it will be going back to the store. Same goes for movies that don't play on my more recent DVD player.
Although it has been said before in similar discussions, it would be perhaps be pertinent to the present discussion to remind people that the entertainment business in general and the music business in particular is guilty of manipulating interpretations of what the user actually owns when they purchase media. The essential question is whether I purchased the physical media and thus have the right to dispose of it in any manner that I see fit or did I instead purchase the rights to listen to the tracks on the media, subject to the restrictions of public performance or charging admission as per the contract of copyright, in perpetuity on my own private property (house, car, MP3 player, etc). The music industry, in past litigation, prefers to change the definition or reinterpret the distinction as and when it suits them, but it seems to me and others as well that they should not be able to have it both ways. Either the disc is physical property or the disc is immaterial and I have purchased instead the right to listen whenever I wish in perpetuity. If the former is true then I should be able to make as many copies as I want and distribute them in any way that I want for any amount that I wish to resell them for, just as I would with any other piece of real property. On the other hand, if the later is true then I should be able to make as many copies as I wish, in whatever format(s) I chose, so long as I do not violate the distribution or public performance provisions of the agreement under which the music was purchased (ie copyright). The purpose of copyright was to secure, for a limited time the sole right of reproduction to the original author or owner with the understanding that the public would ultimately benefit when the work entered the public domain, not to protect the profits of the rights holder. The increasingly skewed interpretations of our nations copyright laws have arguably tipped the balance so far in favor of the rights holder that the public now has little or no incentive to play by the rules because the benefits to which they were supposedly entitled under the social contract of copyright have become hopelessly captive to the whims of the rights holders. Is it any wonder then that people take matters into their own hands with circumvention devices to enable their rightful use of the copyrighted works that they paid for on platforms of their choosing when faced with such onerous terms?
The manufacturer paid the license fee to be able to place the "Compact DISC" logo on the player, and all players with this logo are FULLY LICENSED.
Anyone telling you it's a privelidge can go fuck themselves, you've already paid for licensed hardware.
Running free AOL installation CD's on my PC is not a privilege but a responsibility .
Retard discs.
Umm if listening to a cd on linux or mac is a privledge...then recording that cd must also be a privledge. Oh but no! WAIT! Recording a cd is [right or privledge?]..................... is it art...or is it just that no one really cares?
Rip and burn from one of these DRM'd pieces of plastic, then make lots of copies on audio CD-Rs, which can be purchased for less than $1 each. Give (do not sell) those copies to all of your friends. It's all perfectly legal in the US.
When you buy audio CD-R media, you're automatically paying a royalty tax (3% of wholesale) by law. The RIAA should be more careful about what it wishes for - they pushed for the legislation which allows this.
18 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
[emphasis added]
So, copy and distribute (noncommercially) all you want!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Case I: You buy a movie theater ticket. You have purchased the avility to view the movie. But because you can't make it to the theater that night, you instead set up a video camera on your seat, so you can time shift your viewing of the movie. Are you entitled to do that? No.
Case II: You buy some ephedrine, some lithuim batteries, some drano and some Acetone. They are your property to use as you wish. You decide to whip up a batch of Crack. Are you allowed to do this? NO.
Case III: You own your car. You decide it would be cool to remove the windshield wipers and seatbelts. Can you do that? only if you don't put it on the road or try to sell it for such a use.
case IV: you own some swapland. You want to drain it. can you do that? Not if it's considered a protected wetland.
case V: you own a CD. You trade it to someone else for another CD. Can you do that. Yes. You own a peice of DRM'd music for which you contracted to play on a single computer. Can you sell that to someone else. NO. you contracted for that.
In fact that is the single most compelling argument both for and against DRM. If you are forced to contract for something in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion, there is precedent in some situations that says you cannot be forced to contract to give up consumer rights. However if you are offered something at a lower price in return for giving up a right then you can lose a standard right. Thus one thing you could ask is the folloowing. When you bought the DRM'd music, did you ask if you could pay more and not have it DRM'd. If not then tough luck, you accepted the contract. If so, and were refused, you might just barely possibly have a case.
Case VI: Your a farmer and the govenement tells you you can grow so many bushells on your land. You grow more but you plan to use them only for internal consumption on the property. Can you do that? seems like you could but infact you can't (read the case of Wicard Wheat). That case in fact IS the entire basis of 90% of federal law. The goverment has the right to regulate how anything is consumed or used if there is even tangentially some affect on interstate commerce. in the case of Wickard, the Supreme court ruled that if he had not grown the crops for his own use, he might possibly have purhcased them on the open market.
The point is that No you can't do what you please even if you own property. Don't like that? change 200 Years of case law, otherwise stop whining.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Good post, but I think the word you're looking for there is jibe. And Finnish.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
um Finland is a Conservative Nation. Plus it's the Corporate Businesses that lobby for these laws. Those Corps are Conservative run.
with my dad. He claimed that you don't have a right to listen to that CD on Linux. He said if you don't like it, buy Windows or don't buy CDs. To this day I still can't understand how that argument holds water. I just thought he was off his rocker and that nobody else could possibly believe that, but it seems that he's not the only one. Can someone even remotely begin to explain to me how an argument like that can even be said with a straight face? I'm against music piracy, but I'm even MORE against people telling me that I don't have a right to play my legally purchased CD on my legally purchased (or built) computer.
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
My fortune at the bottom of this story:
"Never ask the barber if you need a haircut".
DRMed CDs violate the rebook standard, and can't be CALLED CD's. Legally, by just about every definition, playing a CD in my machine with a licenced CD player (like in my Mac) is a RIGHT. I've paid money for a CD, CDs _by definition_ play in these players, and the label has a legal obligation to provide me with what I paid for.
Simple as that
What's interesting, is that according to arstechnica, the offending comment was curiously removed from the site (see here)...
If thats how they feel, then I would remind them that having my money is also not a right, and if they don't treat customers with respect, they will lose access to our money.
Reality has a liberal bias
Broken Audio Discs. That is all.
My blog
You tell us that we have to "fight for our rights". What about you, TripMaster Monkey? What are you willing to do? Are you willing to let a GNAA operative thrust his member into your tender anus? Are you willing to take a cock up the ass for your rights, TripMaster Monkey?
Selling your customers a physical object is a privilege, not a right. If you want to tell us exactly where and how we can use your product, then you are no longer SELLING us anything at all and we should be required to actually sign a contract stating that we will only play your CD in approved devices.
It's so lovely how music is considered a physical property by the RIAA and its goons whenever it suits them (file sharers are STEALING our music! Every download represents loss of revenue!), yet other times consider it to be some draconian implied contract (oh, you think you OWN that CD? You think you actually have the right to do whatever you want with it and play it on whichever device you have handy? Hah!)
All of you who are using this article as an excuse to bash the RIAA again need to hold on for just a minute.
[pause while I brace for backlash]
The record companies bring a product to market and say, here you go, if you want this and have the means to use it (ie, the right player), enjoy. It's not there responsibilty to cater to every whim a consumer might have. If they want to exclude a lot of potential users who don't have/refuse to have "means to use it", that's their choice, albeit, a foolish one, IMHO.
An example, it isn't the role of Exxon-Mobil to make gasoline that will also work in a diesel engine. If you want your car to work with gas and/or diesel, you either need to build it/mod it yourself, or convince a car maker to do so.
I'm a linux user (Slackware, if you were wondering) and if the day comes when all commercial cd's aren't playable under linux, I'll either code my own player (less likely) or (more likely) go to the people with the skills and let them know that there is a market.
Don't mistake me, I think what the record labels are doing sucks, and ultimately, I think it will hurt there business more than they imagine. I am opposed to DRM in all it's forms. If I've paid for something, I should be able to do (almost**) anything I chose with it. Despite that, the RIAA and the labels are a company making products and they can do anything they chose. It's up to you to decide A)if you want what they're selling and B) how far will you go to get it.
** - I'm talking within the realm of personal use. Mass scale piracy is still wrong.
Okay, we have a Finn telling us we really don't own the music on our CDs. She says that if you want to listen to the music they own (Intellectual Property being what it is) and license to you for personal use, then you should comply with their license requirements.
The Supreme Court just last Term reinforced the ruling that one does not have property rights in land per se. Instead, we have economic rights in land ownership. This is in reference to the Kelo ruling where the Takings Clause allows the government to seize your land and give it to another private citizen if it will increase the government's tax revenue. So, you don't own your land--the government does; and they just let you use it a while.
So, I'm more worried about my house being given to a developer.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Stance 1: They're selling you a CD. If you buy a CD, you buy the limitation that it only plays on limited devices.
There is a problem with this. They aren't selling CDs in this case. Most consumers think they are buying CD players and they are in the record store with the CDs. Sometimes they are on a shelf labeled "CDs," your receipt may say CD, it looks just like a CD. It isn't a CD. It is an inferior imitation designed specifically to fool the consumer into thinking they are buying a CD, but it legally cannot be called a CD and is likely illegal to market as a CD. They are purposely misleading consumers and hoping no one notices. In my mind they deserve to be dragged into court to explain why they think this massive fraud should be allowed.
Looks like your DRM'd if you do, and DRM'd if you don't. (da-dum-dum!)
The thing that confuses me is that the CD drive in a computer *is* a "regular CD player" to any important extent.
Remember those external CD drives that were CD Walkman's/external drives? Clearly, it's the same hardware adapted to several uses. Just because you cen do MORE things with the CD player does not negate the fact that a cd-rom/rw/whatever drive is still, at heart, a regular ol' CD player.
Sony ha
Er, yes. I'm afraid I've been getting worse and worse at proofreading for typos. Sorry about that. :-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
My god,what the hell do they think they are,are they trying to tell me that i can't listem to the music i have legaly bought?It's not like cd's are cheap at all,in norway it costs ~170 nok for a cd thats like 15 gbp,untill this day i have been very proud of myslef paying for music,but i dont know if i will buy anymore cd's if i cant *legaly* use them on my mac,then i'm better of just downloading it,it's not like i can legaly enjoy it anyways:(
I'm sorry but i have no more Sympathy for the Industry,i think musician's should find other way's of spearding theire music and stop letting themself beeing abused by the industry.
Well, it seems the "Control" is a USA trademark to me (RIAA) :)
sex is better than war!
I wonder whether record shops should be allowed to sell discs which loook similar to CDs interleaved with CDs? One could take the view that they are guilty of misrepresentation: they should have a separate section where they clearly display notices telling potential purchasers that the discs in that section don't comply with the CD standards.
Alternatively, they should advise customers at the till that the disc they are about to purchase isn't a CD, despite having been packaged as one.
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Doesn't the "DISC" logo on the front of my CD-ROM, my Walkman, my home stereo etc. identify the player as a certified CD player based on some consortium of manufacturers??? When one of the RIAA member companies sells me the a CD, and they call it a "Compact Disc" or a "CD", aren't they vouching that it will be compatible with any device that has the "DISC" logo on it?
The RIAA member companies should feel "privileged" that I choose to give them any money for any of their (mostly) lousey products to begin with. That is the only "privilege" involved in any of this.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
What exactly are you buying when you purchase a music CD?
Is it a license to listen to the contents?
Or are you buying a lease of the CD to be using only in an approved player?
I wish they would legally tell me what I am buying so I know exactly what I can do with the Music and what they are responsible for as well.
Having my tax dollars pay for the enforcement of what is a civil action (copyright enforcement) is just plain crazy. Especially, when I, as a tax payer, do not receive any tax refunds when I do not violate the copyright. Out of the 284 CDs I own I do not own a single CD player except the one in my computer - I use the FM transmitter on the iPod to list to them in my car. Expecting me to purchase a different player is cause for a kick in the nuts.
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
So, the music industry has the privilege to make a profit, but only so long as do not abuse the privilege, by, for example, deceptive practices, one of which could be saying that not all CD players will play a CD. Perhaps they can fix this by not calling the plastic discs CDs, and claiming that the new format is largely compatible with the CD, but not 100%.
If, they however, start violating the established privileges of their customers, then they no long have the privilege of making a profit, only the right to pursue it.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
It seems like he forgot a few "privilages"
Do you really think that you should be allowed to misuse something you own? Shoot, I need to get home throw out some AOL discs, otherwise the consumer-police may arrest me for using them as coasters.
The first place, and usually, the only place, I will play a CD is on my computer, where it gets ripped, and added to my music library (all of which I have legally purchased on CD). Usually, I listen to it there, sometimes I copy it to an MP3 player. At no time does the music get shared with anyone else, though.
I, therefore, don't mind the kind of DRM that can be bypassed with the shift key (in my case, I've disabled autorun), if that sort of scheme keeps the RIAA happy and away from anything that really works.
So, I say let's support DRM schemes, as long as they're as lame as this.
I have no need of 5.1 surround-sound DVD Audio disks (I use headphones) with more advanced DRM, and no interest in HDTV disks (regular DVD's are enough for me) with the DRM requiring an always-on Internet connection and special monitors. As long as I vote with my wallet for the stuff with ineffective (or no) DRM, then I'm doing my part. Let the RIAA spend millions of dollars on something worthless. Wait, that also covers most of what they publish, doesn't it?
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
The "entertainment" industry has become a money whore at the expense of quality. Let it die. Let the age of musicians publishing their own music on the Internet start. Censorship of good music could finally die.
It's not openly censored, but major labels ignoring inflamitory music unless it's guaranteed to make a boatload money needs to stop. Clear channel refuses to play music that people could possibly find offensive.
Movies are all sequels and new movies that appear to be original are old ideas put together in a slightly different way. Why do old movies and TV shows seem campy and the stories pretty thin? Those same ideas have been reused so many times the original idea seems stale. Look at Rocky, after that every sports movie has almost exactly the same theme and plot (back story, training possibly with montage, and big sports event) except that most sports movies have the hero win because that's easier to take than the hero losing.
Hollywood is crap, the music industry is crap, the people with the talent need to ditch the rich people leeching off of them and do something original and "risky."
I buy CD's regularly, some mainstream, some niche genres. I've never come across DRM issues with my CD's. CD's I hear about with DRM are with artists such as Jennifer Lopez, so I suppose as long I have I don't get a lobotomy and start purchasing that quality level of music, I'll be ok.
You have the right to choose whether or not to purchase the CD. Period. End of story. That is where your "rights" end.
You do not have the right to force a company to allow you to play the CD here or there or anywhere. In fact, the company who sells you the CD could make it so the CD doesn't play anywhere at all, and you would have no right to force them to do otherwise.
Of course not too many people will buy a CD that can't play at all. The question is how far can a company go in restricting the use of the CD until enough people stop purchasing them that it makes the measures financially detrimental.
If the company does not make it clear that the CD won't play on a computer then there might be some issue with misrepresentation of the product. All the company has to do, however, is put a label on the CD stating that there is DRM that prevents the playback of the CD on a PC. In fact, I've seen several CDs with exactly this label.
At any rate, you have the right to buy or not to buy. That's it. Any other "rights" are figments of your imagination.
Yeah, like they're doing us a favor by letting us BUY their products! I guess they'd just much rather have us pirate the music and forget all about paying for it. Maybe they dont realize that if we dont go and buy a DRM version of their songs we can just as easily acquire them via p2p like limewire, torrent, and (my personal favorite) russian music sites.
In my personal experience, I have downloaded only one single DRM'd song in my entire life and have found it to be over priced and completely useless. It just sits in a folder on my computer because I already have acquired a non-DRM'd version, but I just dont have the heart to delete it (cus i payed for it). Furthermore, an additional reason I cannot use the song is because it's DRM requires napster and that has been uninstalled for a long time.
If this is the case, then you'll need a big, bold label on the front saying that you might not be able to actually listen to the music, making sure it's not "misleading or deceptive conduct" under australian law...
Funny, I don't recall seeing an EULA on the sealed CD's I've purchased that says by breaking the seal I agree to the EULA. So I'm pretty certain I haven't agreed to any definition of "rights" or licensing of such rights. I purchased an object that contains digital music. I can transfer ownership of that object if I decide, or I can put it in my toaster if I want to. I can even taunt it or put it in the microwave.
The day they put a sticker on the CD case that seals it which says "Read the EULA before opening this", is the last day I purchase a new CD. If the RIAA wants to get a backbone and be clear on their intentions, then I suggest they do this and reduce their sales further, otherwise, I've purchased an object with no special license agreement that gets played however I deem necessary.
You buy some ephedrine, some lithuim batteries, some drano and some Acetone. They are your property to use as you wish. You decide to whip up a batch of Crack Is it that easy?!
And, your spedometer goes to 85~120mph. Does that mean you can speed? ONLY IF YOU DON'T GET CAUGHT.
=P
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
If you buy a DRMed CD that does not appear to be DRMed before you even play it, return it. I don't care if it hurts the stores initially, the RIAA will eventually feel it. We have to fight this utter bullshit.
I know we can just boycott whatever these mega-corps push out, but that doesn't tell them our exact meaning, who even says they're listening? I personally think it would be better to be selective on what to not purcahse, if it's DRMed, return it, if it's not DRMed and you want it, let them know.
$fortune
Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
"If the public and 'their' politicians believe that the entertainment industry is on the verge of collapse, they'll be much more likely to accept restrictions on use of content that they've paid for.
Hmm, I was under the impression that in a capitilist / free market society, obsolete industries are supposed to go under and go out of buisness. Just look at the carrige industry at the beginning of the 20th century. After the invention of automobiles and more efficient forms of transportation, the horse/carrige industry vanished almost overnight. This is just a natural phenomenon of the market, as people adopt better / newer technology. Of course back then, the owners of these companies didn't complain and b!tch about it as the music industry is doing today. New forms of technology such as p2p and bittorrent are making the recording industries obsolete, as any average garage band can now post their music on the internet and have it heard by thousands, and maybe millions if it catches on. The RIAA and the MPAA are complaining about people 'pirating' music when all people are really doing is embrasing a new technology. If you look closely, you will see that the artists make extremely little profit from selling cds and such as opposed to live concerts and such. The studios are the real money makes from cd sales. The law suits are just because they fear what the future will bring.
[Boring old anti-DRM post]
I have always thought that if the terms of my playback of *my* music (I don't care quite so much about video because if I buy a DVD I'll only watch it a few times at most before I get bored) are ever controlled by these ever-so-gracious record companies to the extent that I have to buy DRM equipment to do so...then I'll find music elsewhere.
I'm not sufficiently obsessed by my favourite bands to need their DRM-ed music. I'll just get into medieval-kazoo-skiffle-reggae-fusion or something. Buy bootlegs. Go to more gigs. Stuff 'em.
[/Boring old anti-DRM post]
I used to buy a lot more music before the whole Napster thing. I don't buy much music today because I get an unpleasent feeling when I think about the fact that the RIAA is behind much of this. I still get indie music (mostly from folk singers who own their own record lables), but I buy a whole lot less music.
Why should I feel guilty when I buy the latest Andrea Bocelli album? Isn't it better simply not to buy it?
I don't pirate music either for the same reason. I would rather give mindshare to independant artists.
So, most of the losses aren't due to piracy, they are due to people making a decision not to support the RIAA.
Hello RIAA: Getting my money is a privilege, not a right. You are not entitled to get my money simply because you think that I should buy your product. I don't buy Microsoft software either for the same reason-- that they treat their customers as criminals for the simple reason that they use their product.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Well, most political entities and people that are called Conservative these days really aren't. They are just pro-Rich and pro-Christianity and pro-Control.
Conservative is also economic conservatism (like American Libertarians or European Liberals), ecologic conservatism (like various tree hugger movements), or conservative values, like a prejudiced anti-Hype stance.
Unfortunately the Neoconses have MUCH more power than the various conservatives that are mostly against centralized power in the first place.
yeah, annoyingly, this legally-enforced perspective - that every content purchase is actually a purchase of a license to a content experience, and as technology gets over more advanced, the boundaries of that experience can be drawn ever-more-sharply - is exactly why over at http://www.orb.com/ we can neither:
- let you stream ALL the content YOU'VE ALREADY BOUGHT (e.g. iTunes, Rhapsody stuff, etc.) to yourself alone on another device (you can stream any NON-DRM'ed content to yourself from your home PC [WinXP only right now, Linux in Nov, Mac in Dec] to any Web-connected device with a streaming audio player; "any" because of how Orb automagically "shape-shifts" on the fly the content from the format/bitrate/screen-resolution it has on your home PC to whatever format/bitrate/screen-resolution is appropriate for your accessing device)
nor
- let you share streams of SONGS you've created in, say, SONAR or ACID (it's just too dangerous, given the current climate; so we only let you share pictures and share STREAMS of your home videos, since the ratio there of legit home content to bittorrented BG episodes is in our favor, plus is the MPAA really going to suggest that the 4M+ folks who'll buy a camcorder this year can't legitimately share a stream of a baby video with a parent?)
fun adventures within the ultraworld of the content industry, for sure
You'd be surprised what's not on the map in this country. - Mulder
I'm glad I don't have any mod points right now.
Because I wouldn't know if I should mod you Funny, Troll, or Retarded
I want to shoot the messenger!
If we accept that a CD and a DRMed CD are different types of media then why should be expect to be able to play one on a device that plays the other.
If I own a computer and buy a cassette tape... sure I still own the music but its my own problem that I have nothing to play it on.
If you ever left the Diary section (I know your claims of not surfing are a lie, biatch), you'd see that for the statement of truth that it is. On a related note, does Rusty go ass-to-mouth on you? From the shit you're talking it would seem likely.
gb2/k5, faggot.
Copy-protecting CDs is really *really* stupid thing to do. Because:
..and..
1) The copy protection will be broken sooner or later - probably sooner.
2) Re: piracy / file sharing, it only takes **ONE** person to break the copy protection and distribute in MP3.
3) Copy protection will therefore NOT reduce the amount of P2P filesharing or piracy.
4) It will piss off legitimate customers who can't play the damn things in their cars/pcs etc.
So, the bottom line is, they're ONLY screwing customers who bought their product, and it isn't doing anything at all to stop piracy, file sharing etc.
It's the reaction of an industry that's scared to death - and die it will.
It's also my PRIVILEGE to pirate it.
I agree with your view, with one correction: you don't need to buy their stuff. If they choose to sell crippleware, that's their decision. Yours can be to avoid the market involving that crap.
Overall I find that more and more culture and human interaction is leaving the corporate crapshere, and moving to more voluntary, common-sense, and decentralized communities. Maybe the Media Mafia will end up just producing Britney Spears lookalikes for the part of society that doesn't care, like the ringtone mafia does today.
I was under the impression that when I buy something, I can do whatever I want with it, aside from copying it & selling or whatever. If I am ok with voiding the warranty, I'm free to do what I want with it.
But, that made me wonder if there are any products that we currently buy, but are not allowed to modify or use in an unapproved way? (aside from safety or criminal type things, of course). I'm just curious if there's any real-world analogy to what this guy is saying?
TODO: come up with a clever sig
That *should* be true, but here in america, the RIAA has their hands in all of the so called "conservative"'s pockets, every time I see a new law to ban file-sharing, fun, and happyness it seems to be coming from some corporate sponsored conservative. Orrin Hatch's Induce Act. But then again there is also Hillary Clinton. Who is really a conservative disguised as a liberal.
"In soviet russia, CD sells You!"
What the music industry still doesn't get (or perhaps doesn't want to accept) is that they're not dying because 14 year olds can swap 80s mp3s on IRC or emule. They're dying because of the likes of Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. For some inexplicable reason, in the last 5-7 years or so, the music industry has become fixated with promoting mindless, soulless, totally artificial whores, singing equally mindless, synthesised crap. Then when hardly anybody wants to buy this sewage, (big surprise) the RIAA stand around screeching that it's because of piracy.
It's not because of piracy. It's because not since the mid 90s have you produced anything that has actually been worth listening to, let alone buying. If you look at what is often the most popular traded music on IRC channels, you'll notice that the vast majority of music being actively transferred is from 1995 or earlier.
If the RIAA want to revive their industry, they can do so very simply. Get rid of the walking blowup dolls a la Jessica Simpson etc, and instead restore the focus on people who actually view music as an art form, and know how to produce it in that context.
Don't cop out by simply resorting to grunge/punk either. Contrary to the opinions of 14 year olds, there are those of us who know that for the most part, these genres do not constitute genuine music, and who also know that the only real reason why these two genres are popular is because most of the people who listen to them aren't old enough to have heard anything else. When I think about it, in my own mind Kurt Cobain probably had just as much to do with the current near-dead state of mainstream music as Britney Spears, if not more.
But who am I fooling? This is Slashdot. Nobody with the power to really change anything reads posts here...so in reality, all this counts as is futile bitching. I get the feeling that even if one of the demoniacs from the RIAA did read this anywayz, they wouldn't care...it's a lot easier for them to keep shovelling out mass-produced crap which nobody likes and then try and force us to buy it anywayz than it is to try and figure out what we actually WANT to listen to.
Those with the financial resources to control truth making (i.e. the multinational corporations that make up media and public discourse, or that have a vested interest in it) have managed to shift, through "education," the cultural consciousness to support a ridiculous assumption about money and resources:
All material, by right, belongs to corporations and governments, not to people. People actually believe this now, with all their heart and soul! They see it as "just!"
We're in the preposterous situation wherein when some person hasn't enough money to survive, we tell them "It's your own fault. You're just not keeping up with the times. No person has a right to success. If you want to live, you'll have to go out and earn it. If you want money, you'll have to make it worthwhile for someone to give it to you. You don't have a right to any part of the pie, and if you can't earn it, that's nobody else's problem but yours."
Meanwhile, if a corporation or government agency hasn't enough money to survive, everyone begins to look about wildly to see just who is holding on to the goods and resources that rightfully belong to them. "Where is the money!? Someone is witholding from the corporation what is rightfully theirs. And by holding on to what justly would come to them in their beleaguered state, the guilty parties are stealing!" And the corporations are happy to chime in: "Help us! We have desire to exist and have a need to be sustained. In fact, it is essential! Not every one of us can be as successful as the others, but society has taken care to ensure our survival, and it is unjust for anyone to withhold the resources that make survival possible!"
It is exactly ass-backward. We have decided that it is people who, in the competitive marketplace, must innovate or die, while corporations have a right to at least the basic necessities for survival-- and too many citizens see it as an actual injustice when those resources are not successfully taken from the people by law to maintain earnings for the corporations that "need" it.
Ass backward.
The only question is how bad it has to get before the revolution comes.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
This is an example of why people think Microsoft is evil -- when an opportunity to use their monopoly power for good falls into their lap ("'Off-limits to Windows computers', my ass. I give it six months before you're ready to come crawling back to where the market share is."), they don't grab it.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
A socialist is a guy who is determined to control the manner and amount of use the CD gets AFTER it is sold.
Then why is it that Ralph Nader/liberals seem to be the only political voice opposing these institutions? And why is it that Republicans are so closely tied to these businesses (not that Democrats aren't, too)?
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Foot, say hello to mouth.
English is easier said than done.
phone Tommi Kyyrä (09) 6803 4051 or 050 566 4226
Nope. The consumer also has a right to be protected against fraud (e.g. the advertisement as a "CD" of that which is not in compliance with the full CD standard and fails to play in all platforms which support the latter). No, a 4-point type disclaimer hidden in the artwork doesn't count.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
If one side can arbitrarily change the terms of the agreement on a whim, then it is not a contract.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
should make a clear voice againts these kind of practices. Ripping off your fans with your art sold this way is not going to do you any good in the future when people start to understand they haven been fucked over. We as a small /. crowd can bitch all we want, and even vote with our euros/dollars/yens, but we will not particularly impress these kind of a## holes. On the other hand, if the public in general or the artists in general start to reply to these kind of idiots with a collective "Fuck off" and start supporting labels as Magnatune http://www.magnatune.com/, things will change. Things will change rappidly.
--
No I dont own a spelling tjecker!
"Playing CDs a Privilege Not A Right"
...Especially when all they are is middlemen to begin with.
People and companies like these have forgotten that their mere existance is a privilage, not a right. They exist soley at the sufferage of the consumer and the day they forget that is the day the might as well pack up and go home. There is obviously a market for PC music usage. A STRONG market. The consumer- their lifeblood -demands this market.
Do they actually believe for a moment that they can convince people that this is a stick that can just be pull away at their leisure? It's an empty theat because the industry has tried. God, they've tried. And regardless of how much they try, it's we the consumer that have dictated our terms to them. I'm sure they goddamn WISH it was the other way around and little bluster pieces like the one posted try so very hard to create tha perception, but it hold no water in any way, shape or form. And while I even agree that they have a right to DRM a serious clue is in order here. The consumer damands what music they like, the industry reacts accordingly. The consumer demands the hardware they like their media played on, the industry acts accordingly. Of course they can try to influence that demand, but are really in no way, shape or form to dictate terms
We have dictated our demands to you, not you to us. And our demands over the last decade starting with the first command line ripper and cumulating with the Apple iPod. Watch me laugh as you try to enforce you fantasy view of ecomomics 101. It's kept me entertained for the last decade, after all.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
The *AAs have enjoyed the privilege of selling me music. These sales are not a right.
I have the right NOT to buy from them -- a right which I choose to exercise.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
For the record, he did explicitly say linux or mac machines! So we're to assume that windows users are allowed to listen to their DUM CDs. . . (thanks to the dude somewhere above me)
He's totally crapping on the Mac and Linux crowd because he sees them as the hackers and pirates that steal music. . . Even though I hear that Itunes music store is successful. . .
The only logical conclusion to draw from this is that This guy is a total jackass. . .
...I was thinking that their legal machine was funded by the money I spend on CDs.
It's very simple, people. If the record companies are pissing you off, stop paying for the dreck they keep cranking out.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
My spending money on your product is a privilige, not a right, and I will take my ball and go home if you don't offer me a product I want to buy.
The media world is changing, and while I'm sure the RIAA will squeeze some more cash out of their decaying system, there are plenty of media creators at there who are hungry for my cash and will create the products I want to consume at the price and format that I want.
Funny how that "free-market" argument can bite you in the ass...
I'm confused.... politics aside, is he implying that if your computer uses Windows then you DO have the right to listen to a CD that you purchased?
A very bizarely formulated point of view from an record industry propaganda merchant. I doubt anyone will take this seriously though
The quote is based on article which was later modified after IPFI Finland threatened the editor of the magazine.
If you appreciate his comments, you can send your regards directly to him.
email: tommi.kyyra@ifpi.fi
phone: +358 9 6803 4050
fax: +358 9 6803 4055
address:
Yrjönkatu 3 B
00120 Helsinki
Finland
All Macrovision-protected music CDs I have put in my computer played (and ripped) fine under Linux. Meanwhile my Windows-using friend could only play them with the crappy software included on the disc, and could not rip them at all (they appeared as corrupted).
Nice try Tommi. Your brain-damaged DRM you love so much doesn't even block anything under Linux.
The only reason I buy CD's these days is to rip them into MP3 files and put them on my iPod. If they are going to take this away from me, along with the ability to play in Linux, they obviously don't want any of my money. I am not going to buy an archaic CD player just because some executive tells me "buy one or else". The entertainment industry in general seems to be stuck in the early 90's. I know several people who don't even own TV's or real CD players-- they watch movies and listen to music on their computers EXCLUSIVELY.
<flame on>
What this czar is saying is that we have no right to listen to our music. We do so at the whim of the people that we (collectively) pay millions of dollars to for (what we thought was) music. Instead, we end up with a piece of mylar and plastic that we technically can't even hang in our window because that might classify as "a public performance".
<flame off>
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
This issue is really calling for some regulatory protection measures.
If we can make them put Parental Advisory stickers because some guy said the F*** word, then we certainly can make these guys put something that says, in large print:
"WARNING! This CD will not play on many CD players."
Mark
No, really: you didn't. The point was conveyed much more vigorously by referring to it as "a regular CD player" rather than "a computer".
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I have a CD Player I could play the CD with, and it just happens to have a optical digital output. A DRMless digital output.
But that would be wrong.
Case I: Actually, that was legally allowed until just in the past couple years when the MPAA quietly, very quietly started buying legislation to make it illegal. Just because no one did it does not make it illegal. Is it also illegal to have a photographic memory and fantastic painting skills?
Case II: There are very strong indications that the entire War on Drugs is flatly unConstitutional. Going strictly by the Commerce Clause upon which it is all based, it would only be illegal to distribute that crack, not to make it. (Wicard Wheat does not apply because there is no way to purchase it on the open market.)
Case III: That is illegal because it harms other people on the road beyond yourself. Clear difference from the subject at hand, which is entirely about what is allowed to happen in private, using private property. Roads are public property. If you remove the wipers and seatbelts on a car that never leaves your farm, no one can arrest you for it.
Case IV: There are strong indications that the First Sale Doctrine applies to purely digital media as well. Just because everyone uses EULAs does not mean they are enforcable, nor that they form a legal contract. Groupthink will kill us here.
Case V: Why aren't you working to get that case re-argued before the Supreme Court?
"If the public and 'their' politicians believe that the entertainment industry is on the verge of collapse, they'll be much more likely to accept restrictions on use of content that they've paid for. For this reason, most industry talking heads keep their comments in check when talking about DRM schemes, but from time to time we've seen people truly speak their mind."
If the industry is on the verge of collapse, doesn't that mean that they may not be around much longer to grant "access rights" to the protected content? If they go away, then all the DRM'ed content suddenly becomes worthless. Why would anyone in their right mind consider a content provider's low probability of survival a JUSTIFICATION for DRM?
How many of you have purchased software from a vendor, had a crash, and when you went to restore, found that you needed a "license key" from a company that no longer exists? It has happened to me more than once.
OP was thinking of crystal meth not crack (which is trivially made from powdered cocaine I hear).
The best place for an explanation is probably under here. It's not that simple, but fairly. It's also dangerous. I understand that (pseudo)ephedrine as the most easily controlled precursor is very closely watched these days in the US.
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
Kyyrä's comment is related to a new FUCKED UP copyright law that is about to be approved by the Finnish parliament. It features for example outlawing the ripping of copy protected CDs and having an organized discussion about cracking copy protections.
This law has caused lots of anger among computer literate citizens. As counter-attack IFPI has written a petition that requests that the law would be approved immediately. It is signed by many record company bosses and ignorant artists. The interview that featured the idiotic comment was about that petition.
Notably, the Windows platform isn't mentioned. The latest edition of CD DRM technology apparently being referred to here is fully Windows compliant, and will play on a MS Windows equipped machine. Therefore, the Windows OS must be an exception to the new doctrine of CD playing "privilege"
A rather curious position for Finland, a member of the EU, to take. The EU found Microsoft guilty of abusing it's "near monopoly" in Europe, leveled a record (pun intended) fine against the company, and ordered it to unbundle it's "media player" of which the new CD DRM technology relies.
"Dominant companies have a special responsibility to ensure that the way they do business doesn't prevent competition and does not harm consumers and innovation," EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti tells us. How would an exclusively Windows reliant CD DRM technology from the "major" labels square with that?
This is the same nonsense that the US States pull when issuing driver's licenses: "It is a privilege, not a right."
Where did they get the "right" to determine my privileges, like a parent would for a teenage child? As far as I know, the US Constitutions lists rights, not privileges. Privilege is bureaucratese for "whatever we want to control but don't really have a right to".
Why is it that this isn't subject to the rule that you aren't allowed to use one monopoly position to gain another monopoply position.
Copyright is a time limited (or at least was at one time a time-limited) monopoly that the government granted the authors to publish their works without competition. With DRM we have the situation of the RIAA/MPAA using their monopoly position in order to force one to only use RIAA/MPAA licensed equipment to access the information. And yes, you can't legally make a dvd player (or any DRM-ed audio player that I know of) without singing on to all sorts of other baggage in the license agreement.
This is clearly using one's monopoly postion in on feild in order to gain a power position in a different feild (that of licensing a particular DRM method).
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Once again we find the paradoxical system of the:
1984 Copyright Act declaring that we have a right to make a copy for personal use, while:
The DMCA declares it illegal to bypass copy protection schemes.
So which is it? Can I make the copy I'm entitled too or not?
Lastly, considering the wealth and power of the RIAA/MPAA and the producers behind them, piracy would seem to be a victimless crime. If nothing else, it seems to be making them stronger... And why do they care so much about big bad evil Linux and Mac users being able to use their product? Since when do companies strive to reduce their market share not increase it?
"Right to Use is concomitant with purchase."
What does "use" mean? Any damn thing the customer defines it to mean. The vendor gave up all rights to constrain the customer when s/he sold the item (and yes, you sold it despite what that flimsly little piece of paper inside the shrinkwrap may say).
To placate the IP Fundamentalists, we may agree, for the moment, that "use" should not include the making and distribution of copies to others. Anything outside of that should be perfectly okay. Meaningful counterexamples welcome.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
The RIAA must be one of the dumbest organizations in history. I can see the headlines a year from now "P2P traffic dealing in copyrighted music back to all time levels, reasons unkown."
Why these examples are all bogus:
Case I: You buy a movie theater ticket. You have purchased the avility to view the movie. But because you can't make it to the theater that night, you instead set up a video camera on your seat, so you can time shift your viewing of the movie. Are you entitled to do that? No.
You've purchased a ticket for a particular performance at a particular time on private property. That's why you can't put the camera in the theater. There's no private property involved in a CD purchase, other than the shiny disc, which did belong to the store and now belongs to you.
Case II: You buy some ephedrine, some lithuim batteries, some drano and some Acetone. They are your property to use as you wish. You decide to whip up a batch of Crack. Are you allowed to do this? NO.
There are laws that pertain directly to the manufacture of controlled substances. That's why you can't make crack. There are no laws that say you can't make a copy of your CD (in the U.S. anyway). In fact, you have a right to do so under Fair Use.
Case III: You own your car. You decide it would be cool to remove the windshield wipers and seatbelts. Can you do that? only if you don't put it on the road or try to sell it for such a use.
a) The roads belong to either the state or federal government. They make the rules.
b) Can you pull the wipers and seatbelts off and still sell the car? Of course you can. Show me the space on the title where you fill in the purpose of your sale, or what the new owner intends to do with the car.
Does the state or federal government own your stereo?
case IV: you own some swapland. You want to drain it. can you do that? Not if it's considered a protected wetland.
Your land borders someone else's land. What you do on your land may affect what happens on their land. Who is to solve such issues? Answer: city, state, and federal governments, as it should be. Does your CD border someone else's CD. If you smash it, will someone else's CD be negatively affected?
case V: you own a CD. You trade it to someone else for another CD. Can you do that. Yes. You own a peice of DRM'd music for which you contracted to play on a single computer. Can you sell that to someone else. NO. you contracted for that.
Contracted? Maybe you need to think about going to a different record store if they've got you signing contracts. Can you sell the CD? Of course you can. I sell used CDs at a local record shop all the time. I daresay I have nothing to fear from the FBI on this score.
Moreover, your notion that you can trade it but not sell it? Where did that come from? Under IRS rules, trade is barter, which is commerce the same as paying for something. What's the difference, and where, pray tell, is it written that these are the rules?
This is why I haven't bought ANY CD's. With RIAA and people like this dumbass, I would rather jack off. Now I have bought online MP3's that are none RIAA ;). I don't "NEED" to listen to their music. I don't need to use this technology. I don't need shit from these dumbasses. It's not a big deal to me, cause I just won't buy their shit or anything that has this technology. If all else fails, theres always XM radio :)
Stance 2: They're selling you a limited license to listen to a collection of music.
Stance 3: They're selling you a limited license to listen to a collection of music played off this particular CD on a particular range of equipment that they figure you can mostly be trusted with.
Not offering much, are they? Charging an ever-increasing price for an ever-shrinking set of features, aren't they? Stance 4 will be like stance 3, only time-limited or rent-based.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
These companies obviously don't want my business as a linux or mac user, therefore they don't foresee any losses as a result of me just pirating their music now do they? After all, if I'm just listening to it on my computer, no on my home stereo or in my car, then they must not feel like they are missing out.
I agree, these people are deluding them selves. The music and media industry in general is changing and you can either play along with it or go the way of the Dinosaurs. The future is in distributing/selling music, movies, TV programs etc. over the net on a pay-for-what-I-want basis straight into the customers iPod/Laptop/Home Entertainment Center and if anything it is not Apple but rather Microsoft that missed the bus on this one, at least in so far as music is concerned. Trying to restrict the emergance of Personal Computers (and I don't care if they run Linux/OS.X/Windows) or embedded systems as the prime means for John Q Public to consume this material is plain stupid. If you see these developments as threat and not a business opportunity you are living in the wrong decade. With Apple emerging as a significant player in the online Music business and the CD/DVD as a prime content distributinon system for music and movies being marginalized as we speak this comment is almost funny. Did he miss the whole iPod phenominon? And if so where has he been the last couple of years?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I agree. We have over a 1000 CDs in this house. But we quit buying when RIAA got nasty. I already support idiots that were forced on me. I will not spend my money on these ones.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
'Given that when I pay for a CD, I'm paying for the music, not the plastic and mylar'
I think that he purchased both the CD, plastic and mylar.
'If that were the case than you would have the right to download an MP3 or another type of encoding of the music for a lifetime once you bought a CD. Even after your CD is lost, stolen, scratched to hell, or sold or even given to someone else.'
That's my reason for downloading music, and it's quicker to download music than to rip it.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Fine. And you recieving my money is a privilage not a right. I'll start giving it to you again when you get your head out of the 1980s and deliver me content in a way that I would like to use it.
I have no problem with a company protecting it's material but as a customer I need to be able to play it in the following places. CD player, linux computer at work, windows and linux computers at home, on my mobile phone, in my car and on my portable music player.
You might want to reconsider that comment, because plastic and mylar are quite inexpensive these days. If that's really what you're after, and in that particular form factor (for whatever reason), you can go to the nearest landfill and get all you want for free.
Heard any good sigs lately?
So...another case of a nation willing to oppress the people, and take away their rights.
If I buy a CD, I own that CD. As it is my property it is my right to use that CD however I se fit so long as it doesn't effect anyone else. That includes being able to play it, using whatever technology I want, it includes ripping the CD, burning personal copies, etc... So long as I don't go distributing the music...as that is restricted by copyright.
Under the American view of rights, people are sovereign entities who decide to establish a government between them for mutual protection and benefit. They set aside some rights to explicitly protect from government interference...but only lose other rights when they agree to give them up to the government. There is no such thing as a privilage provided by the government. Nor a "right" provided by government. Those are fictions made up by tyrants.
Boycott companies who employ this rotten scheme. DO NOT purchase this crap. If no one buys them, they will drop it. Profits is all they care about. If we dont buy this, they won't make a profit... If they don't make a profit, their stocks will take a hit. We should organize a boycott plain and simple. Who's with me
Copyright is a pretty clear deal: people publish content, they get certain guarantees from the government for a limited time, and then the content becomes public domain. The emphasis here is on "publish", that is "make public". Any form of DRM actually violates this deal: if a company uses technological measures to prevent copying, they should not also be able to claim copyright because, among other things, the content will never become public domain. In different words, using DRM violates the agreement and constitutional basis on which copyright is based in the first place.
So, the question to ask is not whether I should be able to play copyrighted content on my Linux computer. Rather, it is clear that we need to resolve the conflict between DRM and copyright law in a way that is constitutionally and socially acceptable. And the only way I see is to eliminate all copyright protection for content that prevents copying through technological measures, including DRM or use of proprietary formats.
Someone should tell IFPI Finland.... that having customers is a privelege, not a right. Hit them in the wallet if it pisses you off- don't buy.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
It appears that we cannot 'own' music, since that would mean we can do what we want with it. So my question is: If we are renting it, how long is the rent good for? I mean if I bought thousands of dollars of cassette tapes and records from the 80's to today, and if those media failed through no fault of my own. Can I write the record companies for newer copies of those albums? Not that I would want it all back, most of it was crap. But if I rent a movie from the video store and the tape or DVD is bad they usually give me an extension of the rental and another copy. Why does this not work for music?
Now that times have changed, however, I think media companies must account for what they're selling us. Are they selling us a medium, or are they selling us a license? The easy answer, of course, is "both", but then what's the breakdown?
For example, let's say I spend $15 on a CD; how much of that money is for the CD, and how much for the license? If you say $5 is for the medium, and $10 for the license, then I should be able to buy the license, sans media, for $10. Also, if I lose/break the medium, or want the same content on the new medium, I should be able to request a new disc for a $5 charge.
You might want to reconsider that comment, because plastic and mylar are quite inexpensive these days. If that's really what you're after, and in that particular form factor (for whatever reason), you can go to the nearest landfill and get all you want for free.
Paint and canvas aren't terribly expensive either, but its common for Picasso, DaVinci, or Monet paintings to sell for millions of dollars. Its also not unheard of to get something from a landfill and sell it for a decent amount of money.
Plug your nose, avoid the seagull droppings, and have fun!
I'm not sure about that. You may be attributing to age what can be explained by malice. There are always people of every age and in every age who enjoy repeating the "it's a privilege not a right" phrase. This is really just code for "I'm the Man, and you're not", and a person of any age can be succeptible to this egocentrism -- it's just that older folks with this mindset are more likely to be in positions that enable them to wield their ill-gotten power.
I am not a crackpot.
Audio Copyright HRA of 1972(?)
- allows back up copies for personal use
Sony v. Universal City Studios 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
- allows "space/time" shifing of owned content
Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA)
-provides that serial copy protection built into home devices (SCMS).
-Because computers are not digital audio recording devices, they are not required to comply with Serial Copy Management System requirement
-allowins consumers to be exempt from infringement for private noncommercial purposes
-royalty tax of 3 percent of the price of all digital audiotapes or discs
DMCA (1998)
-No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title
So long story short, the laws contract one another to the benefit of the corporations...
I have the right to make a personal back-up copy.
I have the right to shift content on the disc to another media.
I am already paying tax on the blank media used for the back-up copy.
I am doing this on a computer which is exempt.
But...this right is taken away by copy-protection on the disc itself.
I cannot be sued for personal use.
This is taken away by the DMCA which says I can for breaking copy protection.
To sum up, I am actively paying for a right which I cannot exercise.
>Hello RIAA: Getting my money is a privilege, not a right. You are not entitled to get my money simply
>because you think that I should buy your product. I don't buy Microsoft software either for the same
>reason-- that they treat their customers as criminals for the simple reason that they use their product.
To begin, look at something lots of people are doing and say, "What if I had a piece of all of that?" That's OK for a starting point, but it's where you go from there when things get can get nasty. The "good" way would be to come up with some way to help those people do what they're doing, more conveniently, better, or whatever. Then they'd be glad to give you some money as fair exchange for helping them. Unfortunately the current US business model seems to be focused on the "tax" model. ie, find a way to skim the revenue without doing commensurate work. In this model, they also tend to look at an activity and say, "I *deserve* a piece of every bit of that!" What they fail to realize is that people will follow a law of pricing. Music downloaders have lots of music because it's "free." The moment they have to pay for it, then the quantity of music becomes a cost factor balanced with food, clothing, and other such stuff. But somehow the RIAA looks at it as if they were "denied" that much revenue, and had they been charging, they would have gotten that amount of money.
We were out walking the causway through the Bay yesterday, and I had a terrible thought. Someone's probably looking at all those people walking, and saying "What if I had a piece of all of that?" The next step would be to "privatize" bike and walking trails, the then Private Enterprise can run them for a modest fee, and instead of Government paying maintenance, (no doubt doing it incompetently, and government supposedly does with EVERYTHING) they'd be collecting revenue from the initial sale, and tax revenue from the walkers/riders.
Me, I'd be walking somewhere else, and wishing I still had the views.
As for music, I buy as little as I can, because I feel dirty buying label music. I do some shoppig at the indies on cdbaby, also.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"I work and slave all day for ridiculously high wages just so I can slop you consumers with some drek that I got when I game some starving band some really crappy record deal and *YOU* have the nerve to complain that the plates are dirty and you dont wanna eat the slop?!?
I should have you all sent to the slaughterhouse and made into bacon. You ungrateful pigs!"
Recorded Work:
Recorded works shall be defined as any work by an individual or a group that is recorded by any means and intended to be listened to in such a way that the listener hears a faithful linear reproduction of the recording. Such works are distributed with the intent that the listener can easily obtain such a reproduction through devices normally used to play back such a recording. All recordings are encoded to a physical or digital medium and the encoding scheme is irrelevant.
This definition is not limited to traditional works of music but may also include spoken word, lectures, computer generated sounds, sounds of nature or other audible work that may be recorded and distributed by any means.
This definition does not include any interactive work such that the user can influence the sound other than by the normal processes of amplification, equalization and effects. Such interactive works shall be considered software.
To clarify, an album or song is a recorded work. Video game music will be classified as software since the user influences the music through game activities. However, such music may concurrently be released as a linear recording.
Play Back: To play back a recording is to decode the recording into an audible form such that the original work is faithfully reproduced within the limits of technology. License: When a user obtains a recorded work, she obtains the right to use that in any way she sees fit provided that the use is consistent with the rights and obligations outlined below. This license is granted in perpetuity for a fee establish by the producer or for a limitted time only in the case of rentals or loans through a library. This license is not obtained via public performance or broadcast.
Producer: The producer of a work shall be considered to be the copyright holder or it's agents and authorized distributors.
Aquisition: A user aquires a license to listen to a work when she obtains a copy of the work under any legal means.
The User's Reasonable Expectation of Rights:
The Producer's Reasonable Expectation of Copyright
"If the public and 'their' politicians believe that the entertainment industry is on the verge of collapse..." I'll be much more likely to clap and cheer in great joy at the revolution. Anything that gets me out of another Sean Puffy P. Diddy Combs name change and music that is so bad I curse God for my ears. A collapse causes a vaccuum into which something will flow. Odds are it'll be much, much better.
Inalienable rights - life, liberty, pursuit of hapiness - are fundamental to the human condition.
Copyright, on the other hand, is completely fabricated an attempt to spur creativity, innovation, and risk taking. The copyright laws in the US extend the privelege of an allegedly finite-term monopoly on a work in exchange for that work falling into the public domain at the end of the term. The content distributors have hijacked the system for their own personal gain, at great expense to the general public.
Prior to 1978, you had to apply to the US Copyright Office to get your work protected. Now it's automatic. If copyright is a "right", why do the legislators keep dicking around with the terms so often? The Sonny Bono Retroactive-Indefinite Copyright Extension Act is the worst example of this behavior.
Your "Rights" are described in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Copyright ain't part of either.
Is this somebody that we're supposed to listen to as though he's an expert in consumer law or something? Well, he's obviously wrong on this one, so why should we even bother any further?
Heard any good sigs lately?
Driving is a privilage not a right. WHY? because you are driving your car yes, but you are driving it on publicly paid and build roads, along with thousands of others who are also using the roads, and if you get into trouble public employees got to come scrape your cars gibs off the street.
But CD's are paid for by you, played on a player bought by you, with electricity paid for by you. the artist/studio only owns the song, and they sold it to you so its your right as a CUSTOMER to listen to the song however you want to on whatever player you want to. I dont see anything on the player (IE an XBOX game) that says only for Sony CD players. IF I would have seen that on the package I wouldnt have bought it. Comon people!
first off, i am not saying i agree with this thinking, but.......
if you read the legal bla bla you are not really paying for anything more than plastic and paper and ink. you do not technically OWN the music on the CD, you are lent it for personal entertainment purposes only. you bought the vehicle to get that music to your approved music player and you bought the right to listen to it as much as you want.
if you play that CD in your restaurant or bar, then legally you have to pay an annual fee to BMI or ASCAP or whatever company owns the publishing rights.
that's why there was a legal question at some point about the sale of used CDs. it never went anywhere, but the big record companies would have loved to destroy the used CD market. personally that's why i don't understand their greed over the iTMS 99/song thing. there is not really any way to resell those songs. there are ways, but not easy ones for joe 6-pack. that is perfect for the people that buy a CD, listen to it for a few months and sell it used. now they will buy the few songs off the album, and never recirculate those songs. they may not buy a whole CD, but they can not really resell those songs (cutting old man Sony out of the loop).
the only way to make the big labels have CDs that comply with current/past CD authoring standards is for consumers to stand up and demand it. there was some question about how they should make these new CDs be labeled obviously as non-standard audio CDs. i guess the powers at be can just update the standard to say they only play in the newest M$ Windows machines, but till they do that, audio CD implies it can be listened to on any computer.
where is Ralph Nader's team on this? i would think this is a valid issue of consumers being mislead.
As for me and my household, we have some five, six devices (counting the three computers, which *all* run Linux) that play music CDs. We have ecclectic tastes throughout history, anyway. We buy our CDs used. I still have a tape-deck recorder that can tape off the radio at nearly the same quality. When a device breaks down, I just fix it (especially if I'm the one who broke it!).
So it really doesn't affect us too much, but my sympathies lie with those whom it does affect. I personally, will refuse to buy any device which infringes on my *natural* right to use it to it's full extent, until I have no choice, and once I don't have a choice, I not only intend to - but swear to - circumvent it by any means known to software or hardware. It's my house and my business. Come to that, I still have a soldering iron and a box of transistor parts...obtained back when Radio Shack was the kind of place that sold that kind of stuff...
If I buy something, it is my right to do what ever I want to it, and you can go fuck yourself.
-Your customer.
Copyright is a means for a state to encourage creation of art for the benefit of the future generations. If the work is never going to be available to the future generation, what's the point for the state to encourage its creation in the first place?
If the public and "their" politicians believe that the entertainment industry is on the verge of collapse, they'll be much more likely to accept restrictions . . .
Oh happy day, long sought!
If the music industry collapses, maybe we'll all start paying attention (and $$) to the musicians we know, instead of the faceless corps.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I've also accumulated a huge collection of vinyl and CD's. As a teenager 75% of my money was spent on albums. Over the years I have purchased my favorite records many times after the media wore out or simply went AWOL, at the last count I've purchased Abbey Road five times.
These days I pay for music if it's available at allofmp3.com because it's mp3 and it's cheap. Otherwise I get it P2P. Yes, it's stealing and yes, I sleep soundly at night.
What this is really all about, and the way we need to communicate this, is that entertainment companies are trying sue their way into having hardware and software manufacturers pay them a tax for the mere pleasure of their existence. Everything else is a red herring. It's just Sony's and other companys see that big Microsoft stash, and Apple stash, and they want a piece of it, and, if they starve out or kill the right to independently create content, they don't care.
This is my sig.
Uhh, It kind of like that. It's not the water, but the packaging, marketing, and the distribution you are really paying for.
And, I am sure what you are really buying shifts as the financial advantage dictates...
Hey, I don't buy it either, but apparently many millions think it is OK.
Record companies are greedy parasites riding on the backs of hard-working musicians.
Musicians need to RISE UP and not release their music through these nefarious corporations.
Until people realize this, the greed will continue and the industry of parasites continues.
So, disagreeing with you is "whining", eh? Very effective, and used by far too many Statists to supress any dissent. Just call your opponents "whiners" and suddenly you don't even have to defend your position. You're the calm voice of reason and maturity, after all. Wanna change the law? Whiner. Want redress for your grievances? Whiner. Want to stand up for your rights? Whiner.
I am not a crackpot.
... is that a profitable business model is a priviledge, not a right. Complain as they might, there is nothing to stop a business model from becoming redundant or unprofitable. I'm sure Kodak, Ilford, etc. are annoyed by digital camera, but such is life. If they were dinosaurs, they'd bitch about asteroids.
The interview from which this was quoted is about the new Finnish copyright law, which is basically a Finnish version of the DMCA, following the EU directive on national copyright laws. (The interview was originally published in the Tietokone magazine; rumor has it that Mr. Kyyrä was less than amused at being quoted verbatim, and a cleaned up version was put up a few hours later.)
The high points of the law include (these are mostly quoted from Electronic Frontier Finland's FAQ on the law at http://www.effi.org/tekijanoikeus/laki/tekijanoike us-faq.html (Finnish only)):
- prohibition on sale, distribution, possession and "organized discussion" (yes, it says this; no, "organized discussion" is not defined; yes, it's hard to see how this isn't against the Finnish constituion) of products whose purpose is the circumvention of DRM (this would include all non-sanctioned DVD players using something like libdvdcss);
- prohibition on copying of "efficiently" protected music or other copyrighted material to, for example, MP3 players; this is sort of allowed in one clause and expressly prohibited in another (this has been the major point seen in public discussion in the last few days);
- prohibition of "parallel" import of goods from outside the EFTA; individuals can still order goods from outside the EFTA, but all (including private) resale is prohibited; it doesn't actually matter whether the import is "parallel" or the only import, it must still be sanctioned by the copyright holder;
- possibility of expansion of the "cassette tax" (currently paid for recording media such as audio tapes and CD/DVD-Rs sold in Finland; money goes to the record labels based on how many records they sell, IIRC) to other media that "may be used to store copyrighted material"; this potentially includes all hard drives.
"Efficient protection" is a key concept in the law, but is not actually defined. According to the committee responsible for the law, protection is "efficient" if it was "meant to protect the copyrighted work from being copied". So it could be said that this law makes the shift key an illegal circumvention device.
The law was written pretty much behind closed doors, with only "experts" from the record label trade bodies and similar organizations heard. Also the head of the committee, Jukka Liedes, sits on the board of ESEK, a sub-organization of Gramex (a trade association which represents record labels in Finland). The Ministry of Education, which is the ministry responsible for the law, has also been forwarding press releases penned by the abovementioned organizations pretty much verbatim and quoting them in interviews.
It is a matter of discussion whether the committee responsible for the law is actually evil and corrupt, or just so incompetent that they have no actual idea what the rules proposed by the industry actually mean in practice.
The law was accepted in its current form today, with an official (but not having any power of law) note attached effectively saying that "there's some stuff in there that should be fixed". I understand that the law will be headed for the final yes/no vote in the parliament in the near future. In my opinion, it's very likely that it will be pushed through; the recording industry has put their rather powerful propaganda machine in high gear and (I assume) also their lobbying machinery after the outcry from the public began.
The minister of culture Tanja Karpela (who is the "owner" of the law) has refused to admit that there are any problems with the current version of the law, even though it has obvious internal contradictions as well as contradicting the constitution. When opposition to the law first started making headlines, she stated her suspicion that it was a result of "machinations by certain parties" (that's a pretty much literal and verbatim translation). It would appear that she is mostly repeating statements prepared by someone else regar
The ironic thing is that the Sunncomm DRM that Sony/BMG has been using lately in the US doesn't stop Mac or Linux users from ripping the CDs; it only blocks Windows users. Their canned response even specifically says "If you have a Mac computer you can copy the songs using your iTunes Player as you would normally do."
We want to keep the letters DRM. You just want to post-face it with an explination of the letters. I.E. BMG has intruduced a new DRM (Data Removal Method) into their new CD's. This way every time the Media Barons use the term DRM, they are spreading the word that they are doing something wrong. Lets just call it embracing and extending. I don't know if Data Removal Method is the best words for DRM, but I'm sure we could come up with something that actaully sounds like a no joke industry term.
"If you are a Linux or Mac user, you should consider purchasing a regular CD player."
The CD drive in my Linux or Mac computer has a "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo on its door. Its firmware contains full support for the Red Book specifications.
MY COMPUTER IS A REGULAR CD PLAYER.
Tommi Kyyrä, of IFPI Finland has said that being able to play music on a Linux or Apple computer is a privilege not a right, and that those that can't because of DRM'd CDs should just go out and buy a CD player.
ROFL...and when I don't bother to buy their PoS CD, will that be my right or my privilege?
At this point in the game, there is so much music available out there from independent artists that I havn't bought anything published by a major cartel in several years. I aquire all my music directly from the artists, independent record lables, or through internet downloads (both free and pay/download and completely legitimately to boot). I also run my own independent record label and host a internet based radio show at live365 which means a lot of artists send their releases to me as promos.
With the [mostly] crappy music that's being produced these days, this just makes it even more difficult to market to grumpy people like me.
When are they going to make a cool cassette decks for the PC? Try to DRM my Dark Side of the Moon tape, FMrs! You don't need digital quality sound to appreciate a good Floyd song.
You know, this is the reason I hate the Republican party. Republicans have been duped into thinking this is actually what the Republican party stands for, and nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not saying the Democratic party is any better mind you. I think our political system is completely broken and corrupt, possibly beyond all hope of repair.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I recommend one of the following:
Computer Phobic Executive
Computers Scare Me
Stupid User Tricks
Afraid of Computers
Too Dumb to Compute
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
"Tommi Kyyrä, of IFPI Finland has said that being able to play music on a Linux or Apple computer is a privilege not a right, and that those that can't because of DRM'd CDs should just go out and buy a CD player."
? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=JohnConst antakisdrewRobertsRainwaterBlues
He is c...., but if it gets to that, fine. I will just play my own music on my own instruments, and if I get good enough, release it under a copyleft license. In any case, people with those attitudes can kiss my money goodbye.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php
This is a song that I had a hand in the creation of that is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-SA license.
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
DRM is not about people "paying their dues". The amount that people are willing to pay has more
What the music and movie industry have learned is that they make more money from reselling old media in new clothes than they do from producing new material.
The music industry has gotten some people to buy the same songs on LP, 8Track, Tape, CD (, and perhaps MD, and IPod files too) and they would like to continue that trend by completely controlling the media and players, and thereby controlling when the media will go obsolete.
The movie industry is facing the same situation, having had some people buy the same movies on VHS, perhaps Beta, perhaps Laser Disk, and DVD.
Allowing the consumer to have a digital, unenencumbered, transferable media, is scary to the media industry, because consumers would often choose the transfer the old media rather that repurchasing it in a newer (even perhaps better quality) format.
Also, Public Domain(or open source) is the ultimate permanant license. But DRM could kill that too (even asuming that the media industry hasn't already done it in law).
It seems kind of odd that an organization that is having problems making money would go out of their way to piss off their customers. I'm waiting for the day that when you purchase a CD or DVD and want to view it, you'll need to authenticate the authenticity online.
it's a sig, wtf?
A computer IS a CD player, bitch.
It's also a DVD player.
It's also (in some ways) a photo-copier.
Not to mention a print shop.
Mine (which happens to be properly equipped) is also a television.
A computer can be a radio.
My mom's computer is also a recipe box.
You know, I don't think Tommmi really gets it.
On a couple of levels, probably.
I saw a "dualdisc" version of a couple CDs, one being the NIN With Teeth album. I thought "CD and DVD content, it must be like the Sum41 CD that I bought w/ an extra DVD." It was great, the extra content was easily worth it. So I get the discs in the mail, open them up. One disc? Go to rip the CD side, pop it in my NEC 2500A, I get occasional errors on alot of the tracks. So I pop it in my 5800C (DVD-ROM), it gets a few more errors than the 2500A. Well, I have a 12x Optorite in an external enclosure, pop it in there. TONS of errors. These rip CDs fine mind you. Later I get a new stereo for my car, a nice JVC DV5100. Plays MP3s off of DVD-R media. It's excellent. I only need to carry around $0.60 worth of DVD-R disks (2) instead of thousands worth of CDs. Flip through the manual, "Do not play the CD side of dualdiscs, they do not comply with the redbook standard." ...would've been nice to know about that BEFORE I bought the discs. I'm not going to buy any more of dualdisc discs. Music that won't play in my PC, my car, and my MP3 player is worthless.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
This is completely bogus. It is not a privilege for me to play music CD's on my Macintosh as I have PAID for the right to do so. There is a standard for music CD's and players, and they should not make any changes to that standard until the bulk of the industry has caught up. I have heard that there are older (not old but older) CD players that cannot play DRM protected discs. I don't see how the music industry can think this can possibly be good for business.
That i give them my money. its a privilege i took away from them some time ago due to their unacceptable actions.
I used to buy a *lot* of music and video. Now i refuse to buy anything that is part of the 'industry'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Hello RIAA: Getting my money is a privilege, not a right.
Great point. Consider that RIAA "pirates" money in a multiplicity of ways.
-If you buy ANYTHING advertised on radio, part of your purchase price goes to RIAA and the labels, because the station has to pay ASCAP licensing in order to play music. Therefore, you pay and kiss rapstar ass EVEN IF YOU HATE THE MUSIC.
-A similar scenario exists in stores which play background music. The store has to pay for a license and when you buy anything in there, you kiss RIAA ass, EVEN IF YOU HATE THE MISIC.
-Furthermore, when you go to clubs and restaurants, part of your bill goes into RIAA pockets. At least here you have a choice to go to places which play music you like. But still, a disproportionate amount of money is diverted away from productive local businesses.
-RIAA thinks you should buy recordings over and over because there is no replacement policy. For instance, I bought Pink Floyd on vinyl LP, and again when it scratched, then cassette tape, (anyone remember the RIAA freak-out in the 70s about tape), then CD, then CD again when it no longer played, then CD again as they came out with the Gold Edition and then the Millenium Edition and then the Aluminum Edition and there is no end in sight. Pardon me if I download a copy because I am too lazy to rip.
Of course the RIAA doesn't think any of this is gravy, and that is why they don't live and think like normal people. It was a beuatiful business model for the 1950s, when the equivalent of megabytes could only be delivered via fragile media, but times have changed and quite simply they don't do enough to justify charging $15 for albums any more. I'm not saying their product should be free. What I am saying is them need to be satisfied with less cocaine, uglier hookers and last year's Bentley.
OK, so this might be offbased, but it seems to me the RIAA is doing everything it can to kill the current business model of music sales - all in the name of piracy. But it seems to me that they want to try to lay the foundation of pay to play music based systems. In otherwords, you can play any song anytime you want, anywhere, but you pay a fee to play that song. Maybe only a penny, maybe a nickle, who knows, but the thing is that it provides them with a more constant stream of income. I think most people would reject such a system though, so they are trying to kill the current system to make a void to bring in these pay to play systems. Just a thought - and I could be as crazy as the RIAA to have it even....
When are they going to make a cool cassette decks for the PC?
e rt-tapes-mp3-copy-digital-music-cassette.html
I won't evaluate its "coolness" but here goes: The Meritline DIGI DECK http://www.meritline.com/meritline-digi-deck-conv
and stop buying their cds... Boycott RIAA!! I have been for well over a year. It doesn't mean the end of Music because there are plenty of non-RIAA associated artists and there's always other ways to obtain music.
The last *CD* I bought (Foo Fighters - In Your Honor) Played fine on my computer (held shift when it loaded) However it has problems in my car CD Player because the disk is thicker than an audio CD and it get's stuck when you try to eject it.
he was referring to the politicians...
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
...the next time I download them using (name your favourite P2P program here).
Issue closed. Next.
I'm a Finn but didn't know all of this and now that I found out I'm _very_ concerned and wish that as many people as possible become aware of this.
the Earth is Flat.
...
So? Who the frick cares what Tommi thinks about Music is a Priviledge versus a Right? Is Tommi the head of a nation? No. Is Tommi in charge of patents worldwide? No. Is Tommi the owner of most music industries that bleed the beginning musician dry with fake fees and accounting that has no connection to reality? oh
Never mind.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
With apologies to The Who
Welcome to Finland!I guess you all know why we're here.
My name is Tommi, and I just sold out this year.
If you want to play a CD,
I've got you by the nards.
So put away your iPod,
Turn off your computer,
I'm holdin' all the cards!
Hey you, Mister Fair Use,
So sorry, I've got you mussed.
Hey, you, makin' backup copies,
You need my key of trust.
Hey, hung up old music listener,
You can't escape my thrust.
'Cos you are gonna swallow my
D R M,
The IFPI says you must!
You can't use Linux,
That priviledge has been repealed!
You can't use Macs either,
My plan is now revealed.
You can't use nothing,
When my restrictions do convene.
May I suggest a simple thought
Just shell out more
For a new CD machine!
Anybody want a peanut?
Buy it, own it, use it! And in FLAC lossless format too. It may not be mainstream, but I'm sick of being spoon fed pop music and want to start at least supporting open formats and musicians.
http://www.mindawn.com/
This was posted on BoingBoing yesterday.
What I find more intersting is how the IFPI (international version of RIAA) has released software that checks for P2P software and automatically deletes copyrighted material from your machine. How long before this is distributed as a trojan by the **AA?
This country is full of tyrants who can justify other people paying for their pleasures. What's the difference between using taxes from others to pay for what you want and going to your neighbor and holding him up at gunpoint? Taxes are a form of force, because not paying them will land you in jail. And don't tell me that it's acceptable because of democracy, it is not moral to steal from X just because A, B, and C held a vote and decided it was okay.
Shame on Google.
It seems like everything we enjoy has turned into from being a right to being a privilege. It started with the idea that driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right and we should tolerate police intrusion such as checking we are wearing our seatbelts and not exceeding some arbitrary low speed limit. In the corporate world, management mentiones that benefits are a privilege bestowed upon us by the executives. What they give, they can take away. A manager I will soon no longer work for mentions that taking vacation is a prvilege, not a right. I will play my CD's on whatever machine I damn will feel like. I earned the money to buy the CD and f*** the record company that tries to control how I will play it.
Now, the Finnish equivalent to the USA RIAA are saying that playing a CD is a privilege. I say horseshit ! If they DRM their CD's, it is simple, they won't get my business.
When the term "privilege" is used, it means it is subject to arbitrary control. It could mean that only certain favored people by the establishment would be able to enjoy their "privilege". In order to get "privileged" it could mean kissing ass like at work, kissing you manager's ass in order to be able to use your earned vacation time.
Care to come up with a few examples? Any examples being codified into law would also be nice. If you on top of that manage to find any which actually makes sense, that'd be an added bonus.
But I guess that's just me demanding a whole lot to much.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
only 7 days behind the curve!
boing boing - seven days ago....
This reminds me of the time that CmdrTaco said Slashdot Subscribers Now See The Future, except this is the exact opposite.... more like Slashdot Subscribers Now See the Past!
read more rants: thunt.net
It's copyright that's a privilege, not a right. You are granted copyright for a limited period of time because it's useful. You lose that copyright eventually, and there is an express purpose to copyright. So copyright is only a privilege that society has granted to copyright holders. The public could, if they wished, revoke that.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You would think someoen wouldl have clued him in.. Maybe someone should hand him acoy isnce his coutry did sign it..
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
Funny that the green party was the most opposed party to the legislation this blurb is about.
Don't recall if slashdot has posted anything about it but currently it's legislative war going down here in finland as the parliament is trying to put forth a finnish version of DMCA (bit less evil though). The major parties however have been brainwashed by the recording industry fronts and will pass it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's the invisible shield, it protects them from the invisible hand. You can't let economics get in the way of good business..
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Randy: Can I get you something?
Second Jive Dude: 'S'mofo butter layin' me to da' BONE! Jackin' me up... tight me!
Randy: I'm sorry, I don't understand.
First Jive Dude: Cutty say 'e can't HANG!
Jive Lady: Oh stewardess! I speak jive.
Randy: Oh, good.
Jive Lady: He said that he's in great pain and he wants to know if you can help him.
Randy: All right. Would you tell him to just relax and I'll be back as soon as I can with some medicine?
Jive Lady: Jus' hang loose, blood. She gonna catch ya up on da' rebound on da' med side.
Second Jive Dude: What it is, big mama? My mama no raise no dummies. I dug her rap!
Jive Lady: Cut me some slack, Jack! Chump don' want no help, chump don't GET da' help!
First Jive Dude: Say 'e can't hang, say seven up!
Jive Lady: Jive ass dude don't got no brains anyhow! Hmmph!
So I am supposed to go out and buy a CD player that is strictly for playing audio CDs, *and* shell out money for these glass disks with holes burned by frickin lasers that don't actually conform to what the standard defines as an audio CD? I claim false advertising.
not a right.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
I will never understand you people who put private property above human life. Your just plain insane, you are actually implying that privatizing a hiking trail is good idea. And the worse thing is that we are heading down that path. Its scary.
In the 1890s and 1900s, record companies tried all sorts of ways to limit the re-use of their products. Some used odd size and shape spindles so their phonographs could only play their records, or vice versa. They printed warnings on lables to the effect that you were only buying a license to listen to the music, not own it. One of the biggest boons to record companies was the disk record. Unlike cylinders, which could be easily recorded, disks needed rooms full of specialized equipment to produce - at least until transcription record lathes became available in the 1930s. These people are right - if I want to release a song today on a 78 and say "If you want to hear it, buy a Victrola" I'm within my rights to do that. It's *my* music. But it's a tremendously arrogant and boneheaded way to treat your customers, and it just perpetuates the decline of the record industry, which has been going on pretty steadily since the commercial introduction of radio in the 1920s.
Because at some point, it's easy to vanish into absurdity.
I don't feel like paying for the road to your home, any more than you feel like paying for the road to mine. Let's privatize ALL roads.
In the end, the only people who would win would be the beancounters. The people who figure out how much I'm paying for my little slice of road, and how much you're paying for yours. Then how much we each have to pay to drive over each other person's stretch of road as we drive to work. Don't forget about the guys who don't want to participate in beancounter madness - they've just put up tollbooths at each side of their property. Isn't it a pain to stop at 3 or 4 of those on the way into work, tossing the coins into the basket so the arm goes up?
As for bike paths, people in the US are exercise-avoidant enough, on their own. If pay to run/ride becomes an impediment to running and riding, let their health go downhill. So let's decide that there will be NO socialized medicine whatsoever, and we're going to let people drop dead in their homes and on sidewalks when they don't take care of themselves. Next someone has to agree to pay before the ambulance leaves the hospital. (or the firetruck leaves the firehouse, for that matter.) Oh, who pays to remove the dead bodies?
Now public health - my health DOES become an issue. The deadbeat's house next door just caught fire. He didn't pay to have the firemen come, so his house burns to the ground. Only problem - the sparks caught my house on fire, too. Oh, and his sanitary problems (dead bodies, for instance) got into the groundwater, and my well's contaminated. I could sue, but there's no point, because he hasn't got any money.
Somewhere you've got to draw a line, and declare "community" or "society." Apparently you draw that line at a lower level of built-in services than I do, and that's fine. But IMHO, drawing that line isn't so much a matter of "peoples' rights" as it is of simple efficiency. At some point it costs more to enumerate, account, and bill than it does to simply tax and provide.
Out of curiousity, what is your ideal minimum provided by taxes?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
That's why I prefer to refer to it as "Digital Restrictions Management" -- after all, that's the end of it we see. It gives us only restrictions, not rights.
In the U.S.A., calling freedoms (or rights) "privileges" is very dangerous. Our rights do not come from government, they are either inalienable or come from the people. I remember everyone saying that driving is a privilege rather than a right. Huh? How about driving is a "freedom that can be taken away if you are not responsible." With freedom comes responsibility. Although this sounds similar to a privilege, it connotes something very different.
As far as music is concerned, your "rights" depend on your purchasing agreement with the company as well as copyright law (made by the people).
>>And why is it that Republicans are so closely tied to these businesses (not that Democrats aren't, too)?
Yes, let's not forget Fritz Hollings - Democratic Senator - prime mover of the DMCA.
With a few exceptions, it seems they're all out to increase their power and wealth at the general populace's expense - Democrat & Republican alike.
While we're talking about privileges and rights. You should feel privileged that anyone buys music anymore, and if anyone will in the future. I am hereby revoking your supposed right to get fat off of my wallet. 1) it's a privilege not a right, for you to have my money for services rendered. In other words you are privileged enough to work for us the consumers we pay for your services (content, music etc..) you give the content to us. 2) It's our right to see that you go broke by not paying for your useless "services" that you have been privileged to serv us with in the past. I'm not suggesting stealing your services, but rather lets face the facts: A) I already got loads of music that's not DRM'd and purchased legally. and what I don't have, our local public library will let me check out for free. B) Music is not a necessity, so I don't NEED to buy your music. (I'll keep paying my water bill) C) Even if I do buy the music, someone will always find a way to copy the music whether through breaking the DRM, or just running an audio cable to a line in port and recording it. so give it up. 3) Has anyone even produced a full CD worth buying in the last few years... Lets look at other options, aside from that of buying your DRM'd music: I call them the ABC's of legal free/near free music (all of which are my privilege AND right to do) A) Listen to the radio, we have enough stations to find decent music here and there B) Check music out from the local library C) Listen to the music I already own D) borrow friends/family member's CD (music) collection E) listen to my works "hold music" F) listen to the music in the elevator G) streamed music (internet) H) My imagination I) Garageband (make our own darn music) J) legal downloaded music (independent artists etc...) K) Listening booths L) Radio Shark (recording public broadcast for personal use) M) 1 free song a week on iTunes N) iPod swap, trade a friend/Family member iPod's for a week. and listen to each others legally purchased music O) Pod casts P) Just live without additional music Q) Listen to other peoples music (friends etc.) created in programs like Garageband R) Free Local Concerts (Utah has lots of great ones for free, I assume other places do to) S) A lot of Classical music can be purchased for near free (like a couple dollars) to hear the creations of real masters and geniuses, compared to today's random sampling of rubbish. makes these seem free, T) The last chapter of most DVD's I buy has OK music during the credits U) The pan handlers on the street, some play better than the "pop stars" of today. and need the money a lot more, should you choose to donate to the shelter. V) PBS broadcasts. on TV W) Social events, Dances, clubs, church activities, free amphitheater civic activities, etc... X) open my apartment window it's guaranteed someone is blaring there music loud enough for everyone to hear Y) Disney channel, you can't go 10 minutes without a music video being played. and the kids like it. Z) Grandma's Vinyls are oooh so good.
Sorry man, but you need to take a logic class.
Let me paraphrase: "I do X which causes Y. Therefore, the largest source of Y is X.
No comment.
A privilege? Screw me? No no no. Screw *YOU*.
I don't buy music CDs anymore. I have bought *one* in the past three and a half years (and I did some real hand wringing over that purchase of Sting's new CD).
Previous to the Napster shutdown - I probably bought about 30 or so a year.
The reason why I no longer do this is exemplified within the article.
The recording industry clearly has me confused with somebody whose money they already have.
I wish them a bitter harvest of continued troubles, eroding sales and file sharing nightmares.
*bling*bling*bling*
(That's the sound of wishes coming true.)
.Robert
I recently bought the new Dave Matthews CD (Stand Up) before noticing that it claimed it could only be played on "properly configured" computers and all CD players. Properly configured, by the way, meaning Windows or OS X with WMP. I won't rehash what Mediaplay does, or whatever it's called, but basicly, until I discovered that because the DRM only uses a security hole called Autoplay, I can play it on a Linux box, I was going to return it as defective, because that is the only way that the store here on campus (RIT) accepts returns of that sort of thing. It was, of course, a Friday, so I did find out that Sony's DRM doesn't work anyway, but I discovered a new meaning to DRM: Defective, Return Monday.
There's an old saying that says pretty much whatever you want it to.
IF, and IF this is true, then they need to place a warning in the box stating which "supported devices" can play the given CD.
That allows a buyer to make an appropriate decision and not buy it if he cannot play it in his device. To my knowledge where I live companies are supposed to make such disclaimers, and stores need to accept returns if things do not work (CDs fall into the "non returnable" categories).
If I want a disc of music on a RIAA member label I make sure I purchase a previously owned CD of it instead of a new one. Amazon, Music Stack, and other online services are available if you can't find the used CD you want locally.
On the other hand, if the music I want is not on a RIAA member label (which luckly is most of what I listen to since I really like industrial and EBM music), I make sure I purchase it new. RIAA Radar is a good search engine to use as another poster has pointed out. For independent music CD Baby is also way cool.
Are you calling George W a socialist? Careful, I think he'd take that as an insult, and surely insulting the president in a time of war is treason! ;)
no taxation without representation!
"Now, we need to understand that listening to music on your computer is an extra privilege. Normally people listen to music on their car or through their home stereos"
..we'll soon start undermine their extraprofit and welfare , which is only fair.
Indeed, normally people like to eat well, have a good healthcare and a good pension , a decent house in which to live and generally like to enjoy the advancement of technology without paying premium prices for it forever, as if it always was a just-discovered technology.
So companies have to understand their profits and extraprofits are an extra privilege people are graciously letting them have to have them invent new technology. So if they start , as they have, to undermine our welfare by pretending to obtain profit at our expense
They better not drop dead on MY sidewalk, unless they've paid me for it!
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
This annoys me more than anything. There is NO DIFFERENCE between a privilege and a right. Some people believe that a right is some kind of "Super Duper Privilege", but there is no basis in law for this. Both privileges and rights are protected but both can be taken away. Name a right that can not be taken away by a court of law if you are convicted of a crime? Name a privilege that can be arbitrarily denied you? The state can not deny you the "privilege" of a drivers license if you qualify to have one, nor can you retain the right to a drivers license if you're convicted of multiple DUI's.
Finally, look at the definition of a privilige: privilege (prv-lj) n. 1. A special advantage, immunity, permission, right , or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right .
I don't pirate music either for the same reason. I would rather give mindshare to independant artists.
That works great if you want to listen to new things. If you're looking for a particular song, well, they have you by the balls (and they know this).
If I want a recording of Wagner's Ring, there aren't many recordings made, and I don't know of any "independent" ones. It takes a massive effort to pull together everybody needed for a large work, and this is what the RIAA companies provide.
Or even Beethoven's 9th. Anybody care to organize an RIAA-free recording session?
I was thinking about opposite approach: "It's a privilege, not a right that i'm purchasing CDs at all, you fscking AKKA/LAA (equivalent to RIAA + MPAA in my country)!" I would prefer to pay artists DIRECTLY. And yes, any non-Red Book CD I bought will be returned to store as a reject.
And I won't post this anonymously, because I really think that.
1) I've paid for the content
2) It is called a CD Drive for a reason. If a disc won't play in it, then it isn't a CD. If it isn't a CD then it shouldn't be sold in the CD sections of the store, but in the 'esoteric formats' section.
3) As I've paid for the content, that gives me a right to listen to it anywhere within my house, and anywhere upon my person or where I am present. Fuck anybody that tries to dictate otherwise.
If I was an upstart music label, I'd first get everything on iTunes, etc, because that is sound business sense in the long term. I'd offer replacement CDs for a nominal fee if you return the damaged CD, or upgrades to OMG New Media 48bit 2MHz audio in 24.2 audio for a slightly higher fee (say, 50% of retail price, but no case, etc). The latter would probably make a lot of money actually - people wouldn't 'upgrade' at full price, but if they thought they were getting 50% off!.
Oh wait, I live in the Capitalist States of Amerika, where profit is a God-given right if you are already rich. My bad.
Not to buy their product! I hope the RIAA goes out of business. In the meantime the governments of the world should band together and prosecute this cartel as a criminal racketeering organziation and throw their executives in prison! Bastages!
This whole debacle is a echo from the european unions I.P. directives. As I understand from the comments from the head of cultural ministry of Finland the whole thing is an effort to harmonize Finnish legistlation to it.
It's rather amusing as I've seen some comments from the members of the parliament where they critisize the amount of feedback that they have received from the public concerning the copyright legsitlation, the same public that elected them. I do presume that it is a bit of a bother to listen to the people who have voted for you in the first place and not just go on minding your own and your lobbyists business.
There's also bigger faults than the ones related to media industry in the law-proposal concerning computer software and it's propagation via networks.
I think this is just a small part of problem as this was noticed at the very end of the legistlative process and perhaps some other laws are that don't serve the public interest are brewing or have all ready passed. In that I'm sad example of my kind as I have no idea what the parliament is doing nor do I comprehend it from the public announcements that they make. D'oh..
All in all I think that this same issue will be fought over in many other countries that are a part of the EU.
And I guess there will be other EU laws and directives that we will have to acclimate to, sad thing is that all over europe know one really understand what the heck european parliament is doing or what it decides. Or that might just be me. Double D'oh..
While there are many arguments against DRM in general and in the specific way it is implemented on the new 'protected" music CD's, it seems to me a basic issue is that the DRM software controls on the disks are Windows-specific.
Even if you accept their position that content should have software controls, it is incumbent on the record companies to develop OS-agnostic controls -- saying that users with Mac and Linux OS's shouldn't have access because they won't take the time and expense to develop a universal control solution is just wrong.
-- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD
Hey, aren't you breathing some air that blew over from MY property?
Fork over!
please introduce a command that temporarily makes your CD/DVD drives as dumb as a regular audio CD player. Only raw reads on frame basis (those 1+24+8 byte frames) need to be supported. Everything else should be left to the application.
Thanks
How about 'Digital Restriction Mechanism'?
Over 27,900 Google hits for "digital restrictions management" say that you're just about right. FSF head Richard Stallman agrees.
"If the public and 'their' politicians believe that the entertainment industry is on the verge of collapse, they'll be much more likely to accept restrictions on use of content that they've paid for."
... first off, this will never happen (well at least not in our lifetimes). Secondly, even if it does happen, there are plenty of independant musicians and filmmakers who would be more than willing to step in and take over; and for a reasonable price to boot. These days, almost anybody with a good computer can produce high quality CD's and DVD's at a good price. Who knows ... maybe the quality will improve as well???
:-P
Okay
WhooHooo! I'm gettin' one of these!
Tommi Kyyrä can kiss my hairy white pimple covered ass and die!
Consumers purchasing your garbage, ahem , music is a privilege, not a right, Mr. RIAA.
Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
I dunno. Coast guard?
If I'm hearing music for free legally on the radio then it is a privalege. But, if I have actually payed money to purchase a physical CD then I think it then becomes a right. And if I choose to play it in a computer and the CD won't play in that particular computer for whatever reason then I want my money back. My player of choice might not play the CD but it sure will play a downloaded MP3. And once I've downloaded the MP3 I can make my own universally playable CD.
What the music industry needs to understand is if they want people to buy and not download then they have to make it cheap and compatible. Otherwise I can make it free and compatible and not bother with paying for it.
And, I've said this a thousand times but... CD sales don't suffer because people are downloading the music. CD sales suffer because people have heard the songs twice every hour for the past 6 months on the radio for free. They are sick of it so why would they pay for it? It makes good songs crap because people get sick of them, and it exposes crappy songs (which most are lately) that people aren't going to buy anyway. I guess you could say it warns them before they pay. Furthermore most music these days isn't worth paying for. It hasn't been for a while.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
If some cd being released by a media company will not play on all drives due to alterations to that standard, then call the media something else - its no longer a CD.
I've got no problems with people putting DRM on CDs if they feel that way inclined, but don't expect me to buy it, unless they drastically lower the price (it has reduced functionality, and the whole point is to make it "piracy proof" so why do they need to inflate the price due to piracy in that case?), and actually make it clear on the cover that it will not work on all players.
If I buy a CD, I expect it to work on all my standards-compliant devices, unless clearly stated otherwise.
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
What copyright holders argue or say about it only matters to the degree that they have a vote.
A large bloc of U.S. voters are heavily influenced by TV news. All parent companies of national commercial TV news outlets also own MPAA studios (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC->Universal; ABC->Disney; CBS->Paramount; CNN, CNN Headline News->Warner Bros.; Fox News->20th Century Fox), and they won't allow a candidate with libertarian views on copyright to get a lot of face time on TV news. This is part of how Big Copyright buys the American vote.
In that case, making people pay for music is a "Privilege" not a right.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for taxes as everyone would contribute for the common goog.
Search engines are now a public good? Are you saying we should socialize Google?
Nevermind....
I have no problem with competitive pricing of many services over an infrastructure we maintain. But in general the infrastructure should be a public good. No more toll roads. In my county, we even have a socialized last-mile solution (fiber-optic even), and various telco's and ISP's compete over it for your business.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
All true. But one step towards reversing this is to get the message out that DRM may violate the goals and purpose on which copyright law is based in the first place.
And, if we are lucky, the influence of TV news is waning as people move to blogs, podcasts, and online video.
Simply accept that Liberals are teh ev1l!!! and want to take away your CDs, your money, your car, rape your wife and shoot your dog. Because they're liberals, that's why!
If I listen to iTunes for 6 hours per day I can enjoy the music I like and not hear a song twice in a week.
It is a privilege to sell music to me.
If you want me to buy your music it has to work with my current equipment and with my future equipment.
No, I don't know what my future equipment will be.
I buy my music online partially because of this, but mostly because I only like one or two songs from most CDs and I will NOT pay $12-$20+ for one or two songs. Much better to pay $.99 per CD and be able to burn them to a CD myself, which I can then copy as I wish.
And don't tell me that it's acceptable because of democracy, it is not moral to steal from X just because A, B, and C held a vote and decided it was okay.
It is if X was invited to participate in the vote, whether X elected to excercise that priviledge or not. Some people don't realize that they have an opportunity to be heard, and that participation in an election implies agreement to abide by the outcome - even if their vote goes towards the losing side. Of course, here's where I drift off into a rant about idiots who say things like "he's not my president/senator/etc" and/or keep the bumper sticker for a losing party on their car for years.
Note that copyright law makes absolutely no distinction about how a copy is made... ripping a CD or downloading a MP3 is the same thing.
the reason the RIAA was never gone after downloaders is there is no way to establish that they don't already own a license for the music. As another poster said just show up in court with physical cds and the whole case is invalid. Even if they could the RIAA could no recieve more then actual damages ie the cost of the CDs ...actually the profit from the cds.
Now, we need to understand that customers buying your product is a privilege and not a right. Normally, companies do not operate in a near-monopoly situation. If you are such a company and your market is changing, you should consider adopting a new business model.
OMG you must be joking! Cassettes have to be the worst-sounding audio technology ever invented.
Anyway, you don't need a quadrophonic tube amp and quarter-inch reel deck to enjoy DSM, but there's nothing else like it!
The above statement is correct, playing a cd IS a privilege. However fair use, which some drm schemes inhibit, is a right.
FalconShould there be a Law?
but what's really needed is something just like 'DRM'. i.e. catchy, sensible and gets the point across without sounding silly (sorry, DUM is kinda silly). I've heard 'Digital Restrictions Management' thrown about, but it's got too many syllables and doesn't flow off the tongue right. Maybe 'Digitally Restricted Music'? I think the 'Restricted Music' part is fine but when you add 'Digitally' it falls about; too many syllables again. I don't know, what I'd like to see is something that conveys the fact that rights are being taken away and fits in 7 syllables with each letter being one syllable (no 'W's and whatnot) and starts with a 'D' (to tie it to DRM). Right now, the trouble is DRM is such a great acronym that even people against it use it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I've had one of these cd's and it sortof destroyed my PC ready to be fully re-installed.
... Since, they've taken the right to control/destroy my OS, giving no right to listen to my music and not even a privelege. I bought a beastie boy cd without any mentioning it would demolish or rape my PC by installing a program that overwrites important systemfiles; guess the record industry needs to learn what is a RIGHT and what is WRONG.
So they got the right to destroy my PC to give me the privilege to play music on it? Or am I dreaming too much now
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
It's probably small consolation, but I don't know why you got modded flamebait. I guess someone here wanted to avoid the inevitable flamewar that comes from belittling stepchildren. (?)
Most of the stuff modded "funny" here really isn't but I did laugh at your post. It was harsh, and if I were your wife I'd smack you in the head for saying it, but it was funny.
Its funny that we are being suggested to buy a cd player to play DRM media instead of our computers... nowadays any electronic device that you purchase is just a computer anyway, only designed for a specific purpose. it takes hardware loaded with software to process the encryption and enable playback. Lets all go out and throw money away to get something that can accomplish only 1 task instead of investing in something can do a miriad of tasks. That is logical thinking.
Jungner came to MS after work in the government as special assistant to a politician forced to step down after a scandal involving over stepping his authority and illegal deals with the Bush junta over the War on Iraq
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
It comes to this: you can sell extra food, but you can't eat money.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Wow, I feel much better about stealing all my music. 30,000 CD's and counting. Increasing at a rate of about 2,000 CD's a month.
:)
Have to admit, that I wonder where the sense of humour has gone these days. It seems like so many ppl here take life WAY to seriously. Yeah, I was talking about pols., but I like your explanation better!
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I wish that the record industry would hurry up and kill itself so that we could drop this subject (not to mention so that we would not have to put up with the whole marketing/star creation thing). Artists need to start distributing their own music. The music/film industry is the biggest killer of creativity and quality in art.
Or if you are on private land (e.g. a race track)
That their continued profitability as a company is merely a privilege, thus I'm invoking my right to take away that privilege by not purchasing any of their products...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Thanks, you're my new friend, that deserved a lot of mod points.
Handicapped Compact Disks, or Crippled Compact Disks
This is exactly the kind of reasoning that makes me WANT to pirate music...
No, a socialist is a guy who believes the government should employ the CD makers. Some rare socialists believe that the government should own all property - they're pretty rare, if they ever existed outside of rhetoric. Capitalists believe that owners of capital (property) should never have to give up any control of it. So a pure capitalist believes that the maker of the CD, its original owner, should never relinquish any rights of control of it, whether it is transferred to another person or not - they will lease, rent, or license their property. Pure capitalists are pretty rare, too. But we've certainly got a lot more capitalists running around hoarding property, and misering rights on its transfer, than we do socialists who try to ensure all property is owned by the state.
You might think you dislike socialism, but that's no excuse for reinventing what they are, or pretending that capitalists aren't what you dislike, too.
--
make install -not war