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
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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.