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?
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
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,
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
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.
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."
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
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."
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
Let's change DRM (Digital Rights Management) to DUM (Digitally Unusable Music), then we can call them "DUM CDs". Why accept the language of your opponent? Put it into plain terms people can understand.
...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.
Not at all. The era that will be ending is the monopoly of the RIAA and the degradation of "mainstream" music. I really cannot see this effort they are trying to push through working in the marketplace. There are far too many CD players out in the market right now and far too little talent in the mainstream outlets for people to start wholesale replacement of their players so they can purchase and listen to DRM CD's. One of the problems for the industry is that the CD works too well. Other than the MP3 (which also is already out and popular in the wild), they cannot find a medium to make CD's obsolete. How do you get better than perfect sound (well, at least perfect for 99% of the population who can't tell the difference)?
With the formation of iTunes and similar outlets along with the momentum of the marketplace, I cannot see their efforts succeeding long term. Eventually, the grassroots independent labels will rise to higher prominence in the market's eyes because their music will be more creative and people will be able to play their music on their existing systems. I don't know about you, but I will NOT be spending more money just to listen to CD's I don't really need -- especially when their are other options. And there is certainly a lot of money to be made here by those who don't want to follow the DRM path. Where there is demand, you know the supplies will be coming soon.
We are likely seeing the end of an era. It is the end of the RIAA era.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
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.
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?
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
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
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.
GPL is not a restriction. It expands rights that don't otherwise exist under copyright law.
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.
Those are all lovely examples. Except for the one that's wrong.
People don't enter into the contracts you describe when they purchase CDs, books, movies, or most any other creative media, because if they did you'd have a point. The power content providers wield over consumers comes from something other than contract law...
The problem here is that congress passed a law that made it illegal to circumvent DRM, and in the process gave away their power to determine what rights content owners have. As soon as congress figures out that they gave away some of their power things will get fixed. How many decades will it take?
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?
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...
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
I think that we should just shorten this form DUM CD's to just 'digitally unusable discs' or DUDs.
I know that if I know that a CD that I'm looking to purchase has DRM that is going to cause me problems in its enjoyment then I'm not going to buy it. End of story. Hopefully if enough people do that, the message gets through, although we all know that the response will be that sales are falling because of piracy. The recording industry will likely be hard pressed to ever admit that there are other factors in the drop in sales. But then they will likely shovel enough money into the pockets of willing politicians that they will be able to legislate some horrid 'solution'.
"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
Er, we don't get our rights from the government. The government just recognizes them. And when they don't, we still have them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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 great, but then the artist doesn't get any money either. I want to pay for music because I want to remward the artist.
The value to me (the justification for parting with my cash) is that I want to reward the artist.
"from the bricks to the booth...I predict the future like Cleo the psychic..."