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."
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.
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
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
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?
/end broken logic.
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.
Seems justified to me.
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'
Yes, if you purchase something, you should have the right to use however you like. But it seems that the companies producing are trying to force people to use CD players instead of their computers...
If this keeps up, CD player producers could make certain CD producers use DRM to force them to play their CDs only on one brand of CD player, causing people to have to use 5 or more different CD players. This is not going to make people happy.
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!
I've only bought 1 CD in the past year. There are a couple major bands I'm currently seriously considering buying CD's from, but one of the things holding me back is DRM and the other stupid crap pulled by the major labels. If others are willing to live without the latest big hits for a little while, I'm more than game for a boycott to teach the RIAA a lesson in the free market economy.
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
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.
My purchased music folder on itunes has around 1000 songs in it, from a couple years of purchasing. (Damn one click downloading/buying combined with alcohol)
Sometimes I feel like a sucker for paying when I could have just gotten the songs free, but usually I can justify it by saying at least the artist gets a penny or two of my 99 cents.
Comments like this one about how if I buy the music I am "privledged" make me feel more like a sucker for paying for music. Seriously- free/stolen depending on your position have zero DRM.
If I can't listen to a CD on my computer, or can't load it into iTunes, I am likely to say FUCK YOu to the RIAA and get it for free online. The RIAA needs to be very careful not to alienate paying customers.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
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
I was loaned a DVD of the movie "Hitch" from a neighbor last weekend. I tried to pop the movie into my xbox (XBMC rules!!!) to watch it. But for some reason it wouldn't play because of some type of DRM.
Since my wife and I didn't want to sit at my computer to watch the whole movie, I ripped the movie to my hard drive and encoded an xvid video (AutoGK rules too!). We enjoyed watching the movie on my xbox, and now I have a copy I can watch again any time we feel like it.
I enjoy the humor in the fact that I wouldn't have ripped a copy if there were no DRM to begin with.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
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.
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?
"Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
-- Douglas Adams, personal quote (and nicely included in the Quintessential Phase radio shows)
it fits, doesn't it? stereos were part of these men's natural order of things; cds were invented when they were under 35 so they got a career in it; mp3s were invented while they were fat old execs and therefore are against their particular natural order of things.
i'm sure its evolutionarilly necessary for our survival as a species for such short-sightedness to reign in the long run, but in the short run, it simply pisses me off.
oh, by the way, i'm 35 as of saturday. so nobody better go invent anything, ok?
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
>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.
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
It's sad that so many of us think that we can't make a difference right now in the way our politicians think. You want clout? Go to your next party caucus meeting with 10-15 of your friends (all from the same neighborhood). Even with only that many people you're likely to be able to vote all of your friends in as convention delegates, precinct officers, etc. Suddenly your small group of friends represent 1000s of votes from your neighborhood at convention, and that's a big chunk of a US Congressman's constituency. He or she will be much more interested in what you have to say.
Of course, this applies to US states that use the caucus/convention system, but representative democracy everywhere starts with just a handful of votes.
Too late. I'm already not purchasing RIAA label music, and instead supporting artists who have the foresight to not get involved with labels who pay the wages of the RIAA. I used to buy lots of discs indiscriminately, but now find myself completely sickened by the thought of supporting RIAA labels.
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.
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....
Of course, this is a Finish comment, so their law may work differently. But this idea of "privledges" sure as hell doesn't jive with US law.
We Finns are as dumbfounded as you are. For after all, we've been looking at the recent U.S. copyright laws such as DMCA feeling "WTF, luckily we have things better around here", but it seems like that fun is about to end. Make some room, we're immigrating to the World of Shit, too.
Seems like the record collection of over 500 original titles me and my girlfriend own isn't going to make it to 600 due to music producers being so f-word arrogant and downright stupid to make us not want to buy a record anymore. I was supposed to buy a new record today, but I didn't. I ordered two EFFI (Electronic Frontier Finland, a Finnish equivalent to EFF) t-shirts [effi.org] instead. At least I don't feel like funding this Kyyrä idiot and his mates at all. Seems like I'm down to my existing record collection, live gigs, and my guitar when it comes to enjoying music. Well, I'll have to find out some other use for the three-figure sum of Euros I used to spend on records on a yearly basis. Thanks a lot, IFPI and the rotten part of the parliament. Don't come crying to me when record sales are dropping, for it's your own f-king grave you've dug. Treat me as a respectable customer instead of a gullible part of revenue stream and I might actually buy a record again.
indeed. if their modus operandi is so overwhelmed by notions of "property" (the art of exclusion) rather than "culture" (the art of communication), i think they need to stop and think of the following truths that are no longer as self-evident as they ought to be:
(1) music and culture existed before corporations;
(2) no one actually needs a corporation to make music;
(3) no one actually needs a corporation to promote their music anymore;
(4) no one actually needs a corporation to distribute their music globally anymore;
(5) i don't need a corporation to tell me what music i like, or which is good.
Seems more likely to me that the corporate mouthpiece's insulting and condescending *existence* is a privlege, and not a right...
Homepage
Obiter Ludens Game Blog
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was in a game crazy a week or so ago, and saw a man who was at LEAST 70 buying video games and anxiously asking the clerks when this and that would be out ... He was clearly buying them for himself as he knew the plots to most of the final fantasy games :) Very weird, very cool.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
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.