Slashdot Mirror
NYT Opinion Piece on DRM And P2P
bsartist writes "The NYT is running an opinion piece written by a working musician who has a pretty healthy dislike of copy protection and DRM. From the article: 'As for musicians, we are left to wonder how many more people could be listening to our music if it weren't such a hassle, and how many more iPods might have our albums on them if our labels hadn't sabotaged our releases with cumbersome software.'"
This musician should do what many others have done and start his or her own website. Make the music available there, free of charge or for a small fee.
If they were stupid enough to sign a restrictive contract with some media label, the just wait until the agreement expires. Then be sure to never deal with them again, due to the points mentioned in this article.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
"how many more people could be listening to our music if it weren't such a hassle, and how many more iPods might have our albums on them if our labels hadn't sabotaged our releases with cumbersome software."
A few more maybe, but my experience is if someone wants the music, DRM won't stop them from buying.
I'm sure there are a few people who get fired up about it, but I suspect most people don't care all that much.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Well, you're here now. So you tell us: what's good about DRM? What's good about taking control of someone's computer? What's good about encumbering CDs with vulnerable, untrustworthy software, surreptitiously installing it, and having it run in Ring 0 so that people can listen to a crude, lossy approximation of the music for which they have paid? What's so damn good about selling broken CDs?
Some very basic research, even just a few Google searches, would have made them aware of the risks of dealing with these labels. It's no secret that they royally fuck over a lot of artists.
I don't feel bad for people who sign an agreement with somebody without researching the other party's background and history. A quick Internet search would have revealed 20/20 hindsight as recorded by others who have been screwed over by the major labels.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I find it interesting that the more I read on music, the more apparent it is to me that there are a very few (dozens, maybe hundreds) out of the millions of bands that actually make rock-star kinda money.
For the rest: it's just a dream the label sold them.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that most bands are not giving up much 'fortune' without a major label. Most bands can probably make just as much money w/o the label as with, and this would leave the band to make their music, their way, and reach their fans which most claim to be the reason they started in the first place.
See the lil' secret that all middlemen don't want people to know is that they have no discernable skill of their own, other than profiting off the backs of others...(see patents & copyrights -- it's the middleman fighting for protections). The creators don't need middlemen, but middlemen sure as hell need the creative...
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
"Luckily, my band's recently released album, "Oh No," escaped copy control, but only narrowly. When our album came out, our label's parent company, EMI, was testing protective software and thought we were a good candidate for it."
Problem: Major record labels (or their parent companies) want to force copy protection onto the albums of their talent.
Solution: Don't sign with one of those labels, or make sure your contract includes stipulations that your albums will not have copy protection.
This opinion article is indicative of increasing artist awareness of how copy protection will hurt them -- the difficulty is that the labels still have more bargaining power for upcoming talent.
This is a great opportunity for a well-funded indie label to step up and fill the void, to attract talent by guaranteeing no copy protection.
If someone demonstrates to the major labels that it's beneficial to not require copy protection, they may follow suit -- though I'd speculate that copy protection is all about making sure the record-buying public still sees free copying & downloading as 'wrong.' What they'd really hate to see is most musinc 'consumers' feeling that it is normal and 100% acceptable to get all their music from filesharing.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I was pitching the idea of an online karaoke store to a karaoke label. Conversation went something like this;
me: "DRM will always be cracked, folks will find a way around, why bother?"
him: "It makes the labels comfortable"
Me: "Yah but the cats out of the bag, its open season on the net for filesharers"
him: "I like to quote my locksmith friend, locks aren't supposed to keep criminals out, they're supposed to keep honest people in"
I should have come back with "Oh so you think everyones dishonest do you?", but nah, I liked this guy.
Not that it will ever happen in our lifetime for audio files, but there will be some advancement in audio that will only be avaliable on DRM, it's only a matter of time. Maybe it will be some newfangled 42 channel lossless surround sound that we haven't even concieved of yet.
At some point, all these files floating around for free on the net are going to start sounding pretty crappy, and the DRM files will be the only ones that will be the MUST HAVE rage.
I sort of picture christmas with the family. I'm sitting there showing off some non DRM linux based audio juke that I can ssh into, compile my kernel on and browse the newsgroups, and my grease mechanic uncle will pull out the "Microwhore pocket media" device that straps to your chin and transmits 52 channel DRM audio through your jawbone. No matter how cool it is to other geeks I can run seti@home on my linux based juke, it won't matter to the other family members all pressing the micropoop to their chins and salivating from a near orgasmic audio experience.
This has been brought up a lot of times about OSS, GNU, linux stuff in general. We're going to be assed out when it happens, back here on slashdot complaining about the lack of linux driver support for playing back these drm audio.
DVD Jon will fly in wearing a blue leotard, red boots, red cape, and a tux logo in a diamond on his chest. He'll break the DRM again, we'll be happy for a while, but the rest of the consumer market will go on.
Smart people, tech savvy people are in the minority. I hate to say this, but it's true. Most of the world buys what the TV tells them to.
I'll repost this, since the AC got pushed down into the threshold basement.
Travel to http://www.bugmenot.com/ and you'll find that registration is never required again!
(Also comes complete with a firefox plugin)
"If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door." - Paul Beatty
DRM is "workable" so far only because it really impacts a minority. A growing minority, but a minority anyway. For most people, iTunes is seen as a "reasonable compromise" and they assume some unknown group they call "hackers" probably still "pirates" music.
Joe six pack couldn't care less.
Soon, however, you'll need a special monitor or a special TV to watch high quality video. That crosses the line. The industry as a whole is going to find out that you DO NOT MESS WITH THE TV. That, in the US, is sacred. Mess with the TV and you're a "damn govm't commie".
I predict that the requirement for special viewing hardware to "Close the analog hole" will go over about the same way Microsoft's attempt to tell I.T. directors they had to upgrade within 6 months or pay full retail. Anyone else remember that mistake?
All its going to do is wake up people who presently don't care to how over-reaching the policy is. The backlash will be fun to watch.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
"ip-synchers in search of landfall profits, maybe their "clients" wouldn't feel so cheated when they paid $15+ for a CD that contains one good song. Good bands/artists are becoming a rare commodity and are being over-shadowed by glitz and glamour."
;)
Absolutely, though we've been down this road before. The reason it's worse now, in the US, is because radio no longer has any variety. The internet may be able to replace the traditional role of radio in exposing new artists, but I find myself looking to the past to find new (to me) music. I have no desire to listen to whatever crap Clearchannel is pushing... now get off my lawn
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The interesting points in this are (a) it's appearing in The Gray Lady, which gives it a certain weight over a mere web post, and (b) it's coming from someone in the music business, even if a small-time player, vs. one of us tech-types simply bemoaning the eee-vuls of DRM.
Unfortunately, DRM doesn't prevent people from making a copy of a file. What it does do is make it more difficult and illegal to make a copy; neither of these are sufficient barriers to stop a person from copying the file if they really want to. Thus, DRM does not prevent piracy; that's a myth.
However, DRM is very good at preventing legal copying of files. You can stop a customer from copying the music from their CDs to their MP3 player, which means that the customer will have to buy their music again in MP3 form - all the more profit for you. Similarly, you can use DRM to prevent your competitors from accessing your online music service, and use it to prevent free markets arising.
DRM is an excellent tool for restricting consumer freedom and choice. But that's all it's good for.
Did you read the article? The point the ARTIST was making is that DRM, no matter how "well" it is implemented, prevents people from sharing the music with other people, which in turn limits the wide distribution of the music, especially to people who haven't heard your work before. OK, so if you're Madonna or KISS or some other huge name, then pretty much everyone had heard of you, but for every big name band that could really use DRM to protect them from massive piracy, how many thousands of other small time bands are there struggling to get their songs out? I don't even mean "garage bands". There are plenty of established bands who just aren't in the top 0.1% that get a lot of air time on the big corporate owned radio stations. They would love to have 10,000 more people downloading their music and actually listening to them. Downloads still drive real sales, both of CD's and concert tickets. You may only see receipts on 1 out of 10 copies of your songs out of there, but that's still better than ZERO sales.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Now, where was the common sense of someone during the production process saying that it makes no sense to make an actual paying customer suffer through this insanity? I mean, if the copy actually was pirated then it would no longer have any restricted operations and the whole damn portion about piracy would have been removed. So the only people that are forced to endure such garbage are the very people who the commercial is not intended to address.
And that is why media companies are losing it. Copy protection and usage restrictions are nothing more than hassles for actual paying customers. And every time the content providers, whether it is music, movies, or videogames try to introduce another technological solution to their market problem, they only alienate paying customers. The actual people who are unwilling, uninterested, or unable to pay for the content just go out and get versions without the protection.
Great model.
OK, I'll bite, troll.
By that logic, no-one has a god-given right to transfer their music onto an MP3 player. Nor do they have a god-given right to play it on a high-end CD player (yes, some high-end ones digitally rip the music), nor even on a DVD player (same story there), nor an in-car CD player.
If I interpret your POV to mean "the record industry is allowed to use whatever means it deems necessary to protect their property", it therefore follows that CDs with intentionally-broken error correction, which by definition are more susceptible to damage are perfectly acceptable. No-one has the right to play a CD which has acquired a minor scratch.
Now, in theory, the free market could work this one out. But there isn't a free market in music. There are a small number of players which control 98% of what's out there, and these players collude to maintain the status quo. My instinctive guess is that we'll continue to see such asinine copy protection schemes until computers and music players either use such radically different means of storage that a means of getting the music to the computer simply doesn't exist (cf. dreamcast discs); or the need to sell music in chunks of 10-15 tracks on a physical medium goes away, perhaps to be replaced with a subscription model or something micropayment based.
There are many independent bands who do just fine for themselves financially. They're not pulling in millions, but they're living decently ... And then there's this very issue of freedom. Would you trade your freedom and integrity as an artists for money? A true artists, one who puts his or her work above all, most likely would not.
With all due respect, you just don't get it. IT nerds and performers think very differently about their careers, and it is probably useful to understand this difference if you want to understand the choices that each make.
It is a generally accepted principle in our capitalist world that there is a correlation between risks and rewards. The riskier a venture you undertake, the higher the rewards need to be, or else no one would undertake these risks. So far, so good.
Sysadmins, programmers and other nerd types typically follow a medium-risk, medium-return path. You won't make as much as the CEO, but in most cases you won't starve, either. You do a job that is fairly well respected in society and there is (generally, again) a reasonable expectation that you will be able to get a decent job.
Performers - actors, musicians, etc. - follow a high-risk, high-return path. Only a small percentage of people that want to make a living as performers are ever able to do so (imagine if 80% of CompSci graduates could never find a job programming but had to do it on the side while they worked at Starbuck's). They spend years waiting tables or playing in crappy local bars hoping to get their big break. So, when that chance does come, they grab onto it and they feel (rightly, I believe) that they deserve their success. Actors don't work crap jobs for years so they can turn down a $1 million paycheck in a big movie and say, "I don't want to work for a MPAA-affiliated studio!"
The same - by and large - goes for musicians as well. They are performers that (probably) busted their asses to get where they are, and they aren't going to give up a shot at the big time because of what DRM technology is put on their CDs (which generally isn't up to them anyway). It's like this for pro athletes as well, and many other professions where only a tiny percentage of those pursuing it will ever achieve success. (Interestingly, the only place where IT nerds typically do intersect with this world is those who start up their own companies - another high-risk, high-reward path. But these types are arguably a breed apart from most IT folk.)
So you, Mr. Programmer Guy, can talk all you want about how these people are sellouts and should be perfectly happy to just get by with a living wage, etc. However, if you are actually interested in understanding this phenomenon, then you need to understand that performers generally come from a mindset that is 180 degrees away from yours. Even if you don't empathize with this, you should make an effort to understand it.
"95% of all Slashdot