Slashdot Mirror
DefectiveByDesign Supporters to Call on RIAA Execs
johnsu01 writes "DefectiveByDesign.org is organizing a call-in campaign for today. People around the country will be calling high-ranking RIAA officials to deliver the message that DRM is an unacceptable restriction on the freedom of consumers and citizens. DefectiveByDesign will provide the numbers to call when you sign up. This action should attract the people who thought that Apple was not a good target because it is the RIAA that requires DRM and those who think that wearing HazMat suits is obnoxious. Everyone can vote with their dollars, but that doesn't tell the RIAA why they aren't getting the dollars. With a few thousand people signed up already, they will undoubtedly know after today."
DefectiveByDesign will provide the numbers to call when you sign up.
..
Why should I have to sign up? Just post the damn numbers and then request I sign up, and explain why it's important. I mean, I know that requiring registration is by no means the equal of DRM, but on some philosophical levels it does present it's ironies
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
It sounds more like a bunch of people are going to be calling up and harassing people. If you don't like their policies, DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC! It's that simple. You don't need to explain why you're not buying it since you're not doing business with them anymore. Go buy from Indie labels. You're acting like a kid who says he's not going to talk to you anymore and then spends the next 2 hours trying to get you to ask him why he's not talking to you anymore. You know what? They don't care!
Call me cynical, but does anyone else find it sad that this is promoted as such a "cause" to fight for? Has consumerism come so far that we are now protesting the things we buy? This isn't really the context that I think of when I think of a 'freedom fighter' (their label, not mine).
Though, I suppose, it's not like there are any wars or civil liberty issues to protest nowadays.....
All that being said, DRM sucks.
And precisely how do these people expect to get past the front switchboard or the secretary to actually talk to Mr. Powerfull RIAA Person?
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Something that I do when I'm drinking at 2 or 3 am is drunk dial people. This is pretty much a curse as I proceed to leave indiscernible/garbled phone messages for my victims.
Thanks to this website, I'll now be able to leave those messages on RIAA answering machines. If I get an RIAA representative on the phone, it will be perfect because:
- I've never lost an argument when drunk. At least, nobody's ever not conceded to me.
- I'm twice as opinionated and polarized when I'm drunk compared to when I'm sober.
- I constantly like to give people a "piece of my mind" and/or "settle their hash" when wrecked.
- I love to sing when I'm drunk. This is bad because it usually comes out in an a-melodic fashion.
- Phone conversations with me can last an hour or more. Sometimes taking as much as 10 minutes to figure out who I am, what I'm doing, where I am & (the hardest one) why I'm calling you.
So, as you can see, there are so many good reasons for me to put the RIAA on the top of my drunk dialing list. Not because I want to call them and tell them how much I'm going to miss after everyone graduates and moves awayMy work here is dung.
Imagine if every Wal*Mart in a given city had a swarm of "customers" walk in, fill up a cart with goods and then abandon it. You can bet it would make the local news if it were done right. Even the national news. Look how that guy who recorded his "cancel my account" AOL experience. He managed to get digg and slashdot to cover it, and then it spiralled out onto the cable news networks. That one story could have profound effects on the entire AOL customer service staff.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
I'm up for the old-school phone-a-thon, but can't someone just track down the blue frog killers and send the RIAA a message that way? 1000 or so calls just means a $5.15 an hour receptionist has a really bad day.
[an error occurred while processing this sig]
Return to them, via email, all .mp3s you ever obtained without paying.
:)
I know, old hat, but still funny
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
Instead of just complaining about DRM someone should suggest an alternative method.
Let's face it the industry want to protect their products from piracy but obviously DRM isn't the best way to do this.
So are there any Alternatives?
Looks like a evaluation of the campaign itself.
Chairman Ted Stevens (AK), (202) 224-3004
John McCain (AZ), (202) 224-2235
Conrad Burns (MT), Main: 202-224-2644
Trent Lott (MS), (202) 224-6253
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), (202) 224-5922
Gordon H. Smith (OR), (202) 224 3753
John Ensign (NV), (202) 224-6244
George Allen (VA), (202) 224-4024
John E. Sununu (NH), (202) 224-2841
Jim DeMint (SC), (202) 224-6121
David Vitter (LA),(202) 224-4623
Co-Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI), (202) 224-3934
John D. Rockefeller (WV), (202) 224-6472
John F. Kerry (MA), (202) 224-2742
Barbara Boxer (CA), (202) 224-3553
Bill Nelson (FL), (202) 224-5274
Maria Cantwell (WA), (202) 224-3441
Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ), (202) 224-3224
E. Benjamin Nelson (NE), (202) 224-6551
Mark Pryor (AR), (202) 224-2353
While I can understand your point on 'some philosophical level', it shows a level of dedication to stand up and be counted. In this day and age, marches and protests are superseded by our ability to bitch and whine on message boards and blogs. Anonymity is something we need to protect on the 'net, but stepping into the limelight makes a much bolder statement. It takes a lot more courage and dedication to a cause to have your name be listed than using a pseudonym. Please take note of my hypocrisy; I do believe this will be posted as an anonymous coward because I can't recall my nick on here. :)
If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
If they can be convinced not to make too much fuss about everything on this earth, maybe things will be OK.
my 2 cents
hilarious
Spread the word about this call-in by asking your friends to register today! When you log in on Friday we'll give you a special number to call. After you've made your call, you can let us know how it went.
I think the email would go something like this:
Dear defectivebydesign Team
I called that fantastic number you supplied me with. I was confronted with a recorded message stating "Welcome to RIAA, DRM department, the person you are looking for is not available at the moment. Please leave a message and he'll/she'll get back to you as soon as possible. Your call is important to us. Have nice day"
How to get a lot of people to sing up to your page:
1) Find a lot of people on the internet
2) Find a cause they all hate
3) Give them a little hope by signing up to your page
4) Sell thier details to the highest bidder for spam production
5) Profit profit profit
"Everyone can vote with their dollars, but that doesn't tell the RIAA why they aren't getting the dollars."
I do love this idea. Has any one else noticed that if we reduce ourselves to voting with our dollars, then ordinary people get about 37,000 votes a year if they are lucky, while Corporations and the super rich get millions or billions of votes?
Boycotts may or may not work, but they should not be the primary means of collective bargaining for the people. The collective bargaining agency supposed to stand up for the rights of the people is called the government. Or at least, that was the impression I got.
Because trolls (like me) are too proud to register somewhere in order to get a phonenumber of someone they would like to flame.
I guess the majority of phonecalls will be from people who have something to say. And they'll have the chance since troll (like me) are too proud to block those lines.
My guess would be that they want to balance the number of calls to each phone number, and they want to know how many people participated. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Either way, the numbers will appear in this comments page shortly afterwards so calm down, dear! (And it probably really is just a commercial)
People around the country will be calling high-ranking RIAA officials to deliver the message that DRM is an unacceptable restriction on the freedom of consumers and citizens. What about the freedom of citizens to not be spammed by (potentially abusive) phone calls? Or do those freedoms not apply to people we don't like? People really can't seem to be able to fight an intellectual battle in an honest and clean way. What is wrong with setting up websites which discuss the matter in an elevated manner and then letting individuals use that information as they please instead of micromanaging willing participants in schemes of dubious merit? Concentrating all the phone calls in one day seems puerile at best and reminiscent of a DoS attack at worst.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
My guess would be that they want to balance the number of calls to each phone number, and they want to know how many people participated. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Those goals are reasonable - but can be attained without forcing a signup to get the numbers.
You can ASK people "if you participate, please let us know".
And you can ask them to choose a number by rolling a die.
I'm not saying that the registration is evil, it's just counter intuitive in this context, not to mention annoying.
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
Same way some PC game makers have combatted it. Make it actually worth the $23432 they charge for the physical media. Include extra goodies like picturebooks of the band, lyric sheets, cool posters, whatever. The last few PC games I bought all came with extras like fold-out maps, lots of hand-drawn (looking) artwork, sometimes even soundtrack CDs. I know its just gimmickry, but if I am going to get a game, I want to get more than stamped plastic. Frankly, I find that warez is more usefull for replacing a game I bought but lost the CD too than for pirating the latest-and-greatest.
I would much rather go buy a CD. But when they want to charge me $20+ for -only- the media with no extras, those free-ish downloads start to look mighty attractive...
Just my random thoughts.
You must live in Europe, where government still at least maintains the visage of standing up for the have-less'es....
And anyway this is just vigilanteism. What if they get the numbers wrong?
"I can't recall my nick on here"
It's "Kaitiff".
Maybe
I blogged about why I won't purchase any "Plays for sure" music. The DRM is practically guaranteed to make your music collection disappear.
Any system that restricts copying the music you paid for will eventually lock out the paying customer. I refuse to spend real money on a disappearing product.
Why should I have to sign up? Just post the damn numbers and then request I sign up,
simple.
Trolls. They are trying to limit the number of trolls. for every one moron spewing profanity and "1 0wn J00!" at them that destroys the credibility of 20 honest and professional calls.
So limiting the idiots and morons that screw things up helps make the ration of intilligent to idiot much higher.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Don't worry, someone will post them here. :)
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Listing numbers and calling them on one day won't matter... numbers are probably for secretaries anyways. In the news tomorrow: RIAA execs all went on a golfing tournament yesterday and were unavailable for comment. The day after that: RIAA execs all have changed their phone numbers.
This is comment is good, I wish i could hack the site to give you +10 visionary
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
My guess is they want people to register for the same reason that internet petitions aren't worth crap -- anonymity is ultimately a form of obfuscation, and when you're trying to tell someone something they don't want to hear, they'll jump on any excuse to devalue the legitimacy of your position.
But yes, it's a perfectly valid point, there is certainly some irony there.
[command INSERTWITTYQUIP failed: insufficient wit]
This should be at the top of the page!!
The RIAA is just like labor unions, they were a decent idea, but they have gotten too big and too powerful and have grown themselves into a counterproductive entity that is hurting those that they profess to help and profit from them a great deal, which is also the exact reason they will never go away.
dB Masters
Everyone can vote with their dollars, but that doesn't tell the RIAA why they aren't getting the dollars.
Yes it does. If you stop buying RIAA music because you are against DRM they will blame it on pirates and make even worse DRM initiatives. Either way - we lose.
Attack the millions of people who purchase DRM products because it's fast, convenient, and cheap. Those are the jerks who are ruining our socialist utopia.
These don't look like RIAA executive numbers to me...these look like the numbers of elected officials in washington?
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
If you want to hurt them, we need to convince record labels that they don't need to employ what is basically a "task force posse" to protect their interests. Striking at the heart of the beast would be most productive. What we need to do as good, strong minded, mostly intelligent people is start some new record labels that are specifically designed with low profit margins and realistic salaries, and start campaigning to get major artists moved over to our labels that pass on more profit to them. We need to rob the RIAA supporting labels in the good old fasioned american way, which is build a better alternative.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
>Has any one else noticed that if we reduce ourselves to
>voting with our dollars, then ordinary people get about 37,000 votes a year if
>they are lucky, while Corporations and the super rich get millions or billions of votes?
Ah, at last you see the light. This is precisely the way the world works.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
>What is wrong with setting up websites which discuss the matter in an elevated manner
>and then letting individuals use that information as they please instead of micromanaging
>willing participants in schemes of dubious merit? Concentrating all the phone calls in one
>day seems puerile at best and reminiscent of a DoS attack at worst.
In any conflict, action, whether of words or otherwise, is required to win. If you just go off and mumble in a corner, your foe will be delighted and continue to do just what they were doing all along.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Re: I refuse to spend real money on a disappearing product.
No ice-cream for you then. And how do you manage to read Slashdot without electricity? Or a subscription to an ISP? I think you'll find that a lot of the money that you spend is on "disappearing products".
Reduce, reuse, cycle
The RIAA will simply forward the caller ID logs to the lawyers for future lawsuit prospects.
If you call, you must be a pirate!
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
You can ASK people "if you participate, please let us know".
/., digg, etc thread (or headline/summary for that matter). Hell, I'd email everyone I could with the phone numbers (and yes, a link to TFA), but I doubt half of them that called would bother checking the site.
Yes, because those phone numbers would NEVER be posted to say, a
A telephone harrasment campaign will be viewed by executives as coming from a bunch of crack pots who want something for nothing. They can easily plug in the numbers into their arguments about piracy. The reality is they do have the right and responsibility to protect the products they represent. The problems exist because current copy right laws apparently do not adequately address digital content. The vacum that exists is allowing the RIAA to abuse consumers under the banner of anti-piracy. Whether or not we agree that Apple's 'FairPlay' is a good thing, it is an example of a very resonable implementation of DRM. What is really needed is educating the multitudes of consumers about the issues. All too often consumers just accept things as they exist. I wonder how many consumers have computers that are hobbled by Sony's rootkit fiasco without a clue. These are people who would blame 'pirates' and 'hackers' for problems they might experience with their computers rather than the true villans, because they just don't know.
Futhermore no one forced Apple to adopt support for DRM, and so we should be wary of the notion that Economic Rationalism somehow renders them inadvertent victims of these lobbyists and would-be legislators. Apple are actively supporting the reduction of use-rights and will no doubt continue to develop technologies to these ends.
The music industry won't care about some users protesting about DRM, since their only goal is to turn the whole market into a standardless pay per view system, and they will succeed sooner or later when people get used to the idea of using only specific software and hardware for managing music. With comments like these (original story in finnish mirrored here), it's pretty clear that not only the 'merican music industry seriously wants to assure those responsible for various judicial systems that increasing incompability is the only way to go in the digital age.
You have a good point, but if McDonalds ran the "FFIA" and its oversight came to encopass 98% of all restaurants, if it co-opted congress into enshrining its profitibility in the US Code, and if it lobbied successfully for laws requiring consumer microwaves to have chips that ensure home reheating isn't prohibited by the seller of the item to be heated, you might see good ol' McDs as more of a threat and less of a lousy but benign establishment.
Pi Ran Out
This is as good a place as any to post this link:
http://foamyhost.com.nyud.net:8080/swf/cds.swf
Funny, and too true.
The RIAA thinks exactly the same thing...
These numbers have nothing to do with the RIAA.... They are all Senators, some on the Senate Appropriations Committee and some are on the Commerce Committee and others.
I do believe this will be posted as an anonymous coward because I can't recall my nick on here. :)
Welcome to the wonderful world of cookies!
Why don't you try the DRM-free commerical sites? Magnatune is one (most of their music is CC licensed IIRC). EMusic is another. There's a good number of them out there; a lot of them pay royalties to the artists and don't depend on legal loopholes.
You may not find all of the big RIAA artists, but you'll find a lot of interesting lesser-known artists that might suit you better.
I've been buying a lot of CD's from A Different Drum, an indie synthpop label. As far as I can tell they don't have much to do with RIAA. (They might with ASCAP, but that's a fight for a different day).
BugMeNot has basically destroyed that mold. I wonder if the "sign-up" thing is like, a DefectiveByDesign is actually an RIAA shill that's trying to collect the names of people who call in who are likely pirates...
Sorry, what with the NSA and State Secrets and such, these days, anything that requires me to give personal information has me second-guessing motives (as implausable as this one probably is.)
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
I suppose you're right. I hadn't thought of the die method.
I just don't understand whatsoever how "registration" is supposed to make anything more credible by making people use "real" information.
Name: Joe Blow
Email Address: joeblow123456@yahoo.com
Postal Code: 12345
It's a ilttle silly to assume or even expect people to give real information on "registration" forms these days.
BTW, my real name isn't Asphalt.
Sounds like something my wife would do. "You're not doing it right, why don't you do it like this, that's not how I would do it. Why don't you ever listen to me?"
It seems to me that the poor secretary will be the one having to handle these 1000 calls.
Wouldn't it be much better to write a letter, put it in a manila envelope and send it directly to the RIAA exec. The key is to pay the extra dollar or so and get the Signature Confirmation service that the USPS offers. I think when an executive gets 1000 letters on his/her desk that ALL need signatures you tend to notice.
Whereas the British had soldiers with guns that actually did force you to do something (i.e. pay taxes) the only one you have to blame for buying a Britney Spears (or whatever) CD with DRM is yourself.
I suppose the Americans could have just not bought Tea to avoid the tax as well.
No need to declare independence over silly taxes when they could just not buy tea, right?
Seriously, its the principle of the idea that is offensive to our rights as citizens.
Then again... Maybe we should have people go into stores and throw Britney Spears cds into the local harbor. That would kill two birds with one stone.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
that support DRM in that list as well. Politicians react to pressure a lot faster than big wigs in a company.
Nobody is forcing you to buy music from major record labels. [...]
That's where your analogy colapses. Whereas the British had soldiers with guns that actually did force you to do something (i.e. pay taxes)
Nobody was forcing anyone in Boston to buy any tea, either.
You can't take the sky from me...
These aren't mutually exclusive means of reaching a desirable goal: ending DRM-tainted media. You can simultaneously not buy CDs from RIAA labels and call them to tell them why you're not buying. For all they know, the reason why you're not buying is because your wage forces you to cut back on entertainment, or perhaps you've bought all the other Britney Spears CDs but her most recent CD isn't quite as good. Maybe you decided that you'd rather drink up your surplus money with your friends rather than buy any CDs. Being vocal and clear is better than being ambiguous and letting them fill in the blanks.
Digital Citizen
Source: http://defectivebydesign.org/node/141
Oh come on. Your name, address and telephone number are not private information. In fact, rumor has it that there is a book somewhere that has the name, address and number of every person in the entire city. Imagine if someone with nefarious purposes were to get ahold of that -- we would all be in trouble!
Make sure you sign up for my campaign too. I'll be dressing like Scrooge and marching up and down outside my local bank complaining about how they have more money than me and won't give me any. If we can get a thousand people dressed like me they're bound to give us lots of money don't you think? Banks are just so selfish!
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
The fact that it doesn't work is a very big problem. Everytime that it doesn't work *AA want stronger laws for people breaking the unworkable DRM.
If you don't think there are any Civil Liberty issues today, then you are not alarmed at the fact that DMCA could have been made into a law. It is a very bad law that discourages reverse-engineering, encourages consumer lock-in, and reduces the rights of the Consumer. If you think that consumers losing their rights is not a civil liberty issue, then I guess you will wait like the Germans waited, and watched the rise of Nazism.
Actually America has been ripe for the rise of a Fascist nation for quite some time. I am not surprised that Bush has siezed the opportunity.
All said and done, I am lucky to not be living in the USA.
Yeah, but the phone book doesn't contain a correlation with "likely to be a pirate".
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
they pick up the tab for the call: RIAA 800 253 1552.
Sorry if this is redundant, I didn't read the responses.
I must say I was fairly shocked to get through the first time.
As far as numbers of people calling, I guess it isn't going so well.
Really? Because my land-line is unlisted, and my cell phone doesn't appear in there either. So, how exactly does this "magical book" include me?
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
They are launching a campaign to help deter DRM. It's a good thing that people are approaching the problem in cheap and creative ways. Suggestion it's a bad thing for them to protest sounds pretty communist to me.
The question is how effective will it be. Most of them probably screen the majority of their calls and will just start blocking calls. They don't care about the users. They are corporate evangalists trying to push morals on the consumers based on unrealistic claims of profit loss. This is something that companies controlling copyrighted works have dreamed of for years. I think DRM will prove to defeat itself or become ineffective as most media controlling standards have. If it does then Americans will sadly be exposed to even less of the arts.
The real trick isn't making people pay for art in whatever form you imagine. It's motivating them to really want it. I think with less free music on the market fewer people have the chance to experience a variety of music. This effectively makes music less popular to the cultures of the world by limiting it's availability. Perhaps the real solution is to remove record companies from the picture alltogether. Artists themselves should control their works and not let record companies control the industry because they provide a music distribution company. It really never made any sense to sign yourself over to a company like this, but record companies have the money to launch an artist where an independant artists has to truly have a loyal fanbase. With the combinition of greatly reduced recording and video production costs record companies are becoming less and less necessary. Ultimately it will be artists and consumers who are both hurt by DRM. If you sell your song on a media that then steals your song from you. You as the consumer may lose faith in the artists you bought from or in buying music in general. In few industries are limiting factors on distribution of a media product going to be an effective or even good idea.
These companies need to focus on new ways to sell ideas not on locking ideas away for less people to experience.
If the RIAA can't figure out why people aren't buying over-priced, purposely crippled products, it's not MY responsibility to tell them. That's why capitalism is great. You start losing money, then you figure out why, and try to win the customers back.
...because access to information is essential in a Free society. Sure, at the moment it's only being used for unimportant stuff like music, but tomorrow it could very well be used to restrict your access to government information.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Yeah, but the phone book doesn't contain a correlation with "likely to be a pirate".
According to the RIAA numbers on the losses due to pirating, I would have to disagree with your assumption. Based on their numbers, if you're listed in the phone book, you're likely a pirate.Simply stating [Citation Needed] does not automatically make you insightful or brilliant.
If you don't like their policies, DON'T BUY THEIR MUSIC!
Unfortunately at this level that wont work given a critical mass of pro-business, pro-??AA lobbyists, and citizens that dont know any better. Besides, it might just allow them to know that DRM'd music is amounting to damaged goods.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Here you go:
Name Organization Country Phone NUmber
Brad Buckles RIAA USA (202) 857-9607
Mitch Bainwol RIAA USA (202) 857-9651
Cary Sherman RIAA USA (202) 857-9632
Mitch Glazier (202) 857-9673 USA RIAA
Neil Turkowitz RIAA USA (202) 857-9647
Steve Redmond BPI UK +44 (0)20 7803 1324
Peter Jamieson BPI UK +44 (0) 20 7803 1311
Matt Phillips BPI UK 44 (0) 77 3951 4963
Michael Haentjes IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-0
Peter Zombik IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-0
Jean never Foitzik IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-23
Herve Rony SNEP France +33 (1) 44 13 66 66
Graham Henderson CRIA Canada 1 (416) 967-7272 ext. 10
While I laughed when I read your post, I think if I had mod points I would mod you insightful :)
- Brad Buckles RIAA USA (202) 857-9607
- Mitch Bainwol RIAA USA (202) 857-9651
- Cary Sherman RIAA USA (202) 857-9632
- Mitch Glazier RIAA USA (202) 857-9673
- Neil Turkowitz RIAA USA (202) 857-9647
- Steve Redmond BPI UK +44 (0)20 7803 1324
- Peter Jamieson BPI UK +44 (0) 20 7803 1311
- Matt Phillips BPI UK 44 (0) 77 3951 4963
- Michael Haentjes IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-0
- Peter Zombik IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-0
- Jean never Foitzik IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-23
- Herve Rony SNEP France +33 (1) 44 13 66 66
- Graham Henderson CRIA Canada 1 (416) 967-7272 ext. 102
Posting anonymously because I can.On the RIAA page, there is a list of labels that associate themselves with the RIAA - remember, the RIAA is a group of labels, and other music related 'entities' that like the lobbying power that the RIAA gives them.
Not buying CDs, videos or DRMd files is not going to hurt the RIAA - they make their money from 'dues' from the individual labels. Not buying CDs will only help the RIAA make a case that it's due to piracy, and make that case to those who make the laws.
However, if a boycott was organized that picked, let's say five, (smaller) labels from that list, and let them know that no CDs from them will be purchased that month or year by the organized boycott, calls of piracy hurting sales could be refuted on that smaller scale,(Not that they can't be refuted now...)
Labels who think that calling their customers thieves, handing out lawsuits, restricting fair use, and lobbying for the demise of independent music is ok will get a message that their customers will not stand for it.
Issues with this:
In order to work this boycott has to be big, organized, and educated. Big, so the set of music the particular few labels include intersect with the boycotting group. The boycott doesn't work if no one was going to buy that music anyway. Those sales 'lost' to apathy will be blamed on piracy, and used to lobby for more restrictions and copyrightholder power.
Oraganized, so that the chosen labels (picked by size and choice of music: see above) get an actual message : "You are being boycotted by x number of people who have agreed that they will not buy your labels offerings until: (insert ultimatum here - hell freezes over, a year passes, or my favorite, disassociation with the RIAA) This notice should be sent anywhere that would reproduce it, and those not 'signed up' should be ...
Educated, so that they know what the RIAA is (not a company per se, but a collection of companies), why the boycott is happening, and how they can help.
There are certainly other things to take into account, such as the 'list' is by design, not accurate. There have been cases where the RIAA has claimed membership by some small (and suddenly successful) lables, in order to present a 'united front' and spread the message that RIAA=success/no RIAA=obscurity.
I'm convinced that the only way to kill the RIAA is to go after the legs - small and medium labels that support it. Once these smaller labels have severed their connection with the RIAA, the RIAA will have less money to lobby for DRM and the extention of copyrights, less money to pay lawyers to sue your dead grandma, less money to push their skewed facts, figures and arguments to an uneducated public.
Remember, the RIAA's money comes from labels and manufacturing, whose money comes from you. Small, focused strikes by a large educated group are the only way to win.
DRM is a solution to piracy. It isn't a great solution, but if music is free to redistribute, then very few will be original distributors. Scarcity is an essential concept in economics.
/. that will be a huge stretch ). Then, consider that someone is giving it away for free. Then, you will understand DRM.
Consider for a moment that you produce an electronic product (e.g., music, movies, video games, etc). How will you get paid for your efforts? If the cost of production (and reproduction) is zero, and you have no way to limit it, you will have a hard road ahead.
Broadcast TV, and radio are free. They use commercials to generate revenue. But, redistributing them is still not legal, even though the original broadcast was free.
It amuzes me that kids think free music is a right. It takes a lot of effort to produce a quality product (of any kind). Demanding that it be free is insane.
I know there are those out there that will split hairs and say "we don't want it to be free, I just want to do what I want with _my_ music". It isn't "your" music. The people that produce and distribute it are willing to let you listen to it, _if_ you are willing to agree to their terms. You don't have to agree to their terms. But, then you don't get to listen.
Put your self in their shoes. Pretend for a moment that you produce something of value (from what I've read on
It's an inclusion by exclusion. The RIAA is in cahoots with the NSA and the FBI and any other TLA I can think of. According to this government, since you are not in the phone book, you must have something to hide (besides your phone number). Pirate... Terrorist... What is it?!?
What about us classic rock fans? I love the Stones, the Who, the Beatles...I could go on and on. I've already purchased this music on vinyl and tape (I'm an old fogie at heart). I also bought (and lost/scratched/destroyed) a good chunk of these tunes on CD.
I don't think I'm entitled to anything. However, I don't think the RIAA is entitled to anything either.
With the exception of the Stones, 50% of each of the aforementioned bands are DEAD. Repeat: dead.
I've already bought this music multiple times. Repeat: multiple times.
DRM is tyranny. Viva le revolution!
barack to the future?
Actually, I have a cell phone, which isn't listed in the phone book.
I get all my mail at a PO box, so even if my phone number *were* listed, my address probably wouldn't be.
And yet, my employers still send my previous year's tax forms to my previous-year's home address.
I'd still be fairly easy to find with Google, though.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Actually, I just got the strangest mental image. Let's work on that analogy a little. (Slightly OT)
If McDonalds fell under the DMCA, you can choose to buy a Big Mac or not (see exceptions below). Regardless, you still have the option of finding food elsewhere. However, if you purchase the Big Mac, you will be bound by a very specific set of rules found on the inside of the wrapper: You are the only person authorized to consume the Big Mac, you may not sell it or offer it to others. You may not examine, disassemble or modify the Big Mac (e.g. you cannot take the pickles off, or add more mustard, cut the burger in half). You may not tell others how to perform these actions, or possess or traffic in tools to assist with these actions (e.g. a knife). You must consume the Big Mac from the original wrapper; it may not be placed on a plate, in a lunchbox, or in a fridge. The Big Mac must be purchased and consumed within the US, and the right to consume may be revoked at any time without warning. Violation of any of these conditions will make you subject to civil fines (upwards of $150,000US per instance) and possibly criminal penalties.
How quickly we forget ourselves. Only a few years ago in the midst of the "Napster Revolution" there was a fair bit of talk about how the media cartels were attacking peer to peer networks before the feared change, because the Internet represented a new paradigm of buisness and other such things. We said that they're not ready for the changes a new world imposes on the market. Well, guess what? They adapted. I certanly don't think that DRM is the right answer as it can only hurt legitimate consumers with little to no effect on piracy. However, this is change, this is how they've adapted to the situation. Many are convinced that the only way that they can protect their assets is to lock them up in a little box and only let the customer borrow the key for a few minutes after they've paid (yet again). They changed, much as any people ranted that they needed to... And it is certainly for the worse.
My mother, a 50-some-year-old stockbroker who can certainly afford to buy her music collection, even several times at today's inflated prices, lost her entire collection of legitimately purchased music to FairPlay. She was using iTunes on her work computer, which was backing up "My Documents" (and thus "My Music") to the company server, so that the server could be backed up on an external hard drive and taken home.
Because of this, iTunes decided that she had her library on more than one computer. The five-computer limit kicked in damn fast, and she lost her collection.
And you know and I know that FairPlay has been cracked almost trivially in the past. It's probably still cracked somewhere, I haven't looked recently. So not only does it hurt people like my mother, it does nothing to stop a pirate with half a brain.
Now, consider that you're calling FairPlay a "reasonable implementation of DRM", you begin to understand why we believe that all DRM is defective by design. Like all DRM, it punishes the legitimate users while barely even slowing down pirates.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
That's what people are doing. And that's what the RIAA is using as justification for 'lost sales' due to non-DRM protected music/downloads. The more people who don't buy their music, the more numbers RIAA has to push on the government as 'lost sales'.
I think the theft argument is tired. People have been using it for decades now, and when it comes to media usage, it really, honestly doesn't apply. If I buy a car from a car dealership, and then turn it around and give it away to a friend, does the car company sue me? But! they didn't get a profit from my giving that car away! Perhaps, they should sue me! I know, your saying to yourself right now "but that's not the same because if you give the car away you don't have it anymore for yourself." Exactly. We've been applying the term "theft" to something that can't be stolen. Sure, it can be traded. It can be given to sombody without charging them. You might eeevvvven be able to stretch it into "unfair trading", but to call it theft is lunacy. It's a word thats applied simply to generate sensationalism. "But! They're stealing my music!" sounds alot more we-need-protection-ish than "But! They're trading my music!"
Right now, in the US, there are alot of states that make it legal to shoot sombody who comes into your house who you beleive might be there to steal something.
Now, imagine for a second, if trading a couple of music files could really be bundled into "theft", then, should it be legal for a performer to open fire on sombody in the crowd he sees with a microphone? How about bursting into your house and shooting you dead?
You are absolutely right my friend, the problem does look alot different in their shoes. It looks alot like this: How, oh how do we convince the legislature and governing bodies that something that is less of a crime than "copyright infringment without monetary gain" can be publicised, and then treated as if its grand larceny?
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
Why can't they just buy the CD and get it over with ....
They are really the ones defective by design.
Not only is it annoying, which is counterproductive, but if I was a top level executive I'd take this opportunity to have a 3 day weekend.
Maybe most women have a level to which they wont sink?
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
I just phoned one of the execs (no answer after 12 rings) and will keep trying. I will post the phone numbers here, but I do encourage people to stand up and be counted by still signing up at the DefectiveByDesign.org website.
We need to take actions like this as a community, because it's our best (and possibly only) tool. We don't have lobbyists cozying up to government officials, and we don't have the money to pay to Learjet the politicians to a nice dinner on a private island. But we do have strength in numbers, and if only we have the backbone to stand up and make our views known, we can make a difference. Because I'm not sure the MAFIAA has backbone; their backs are stiff just because they're so stuffed with money.
By the way, the DefectiveByDesign.org web site only shows ten call reports from people having made phone calls. When I tried to submit my report, I got an error message. So maybe the site isn't working properly. I hope in the end we do get a tally of how many people responded.
Brad Buckles RIAA USA (202) 857-9607
Mitch Bainwol RIAA USA (202) 857-9651
Cary Sherman RIAA USA (202) 857-9632
Mitch Glazier USA RIAA (202) 857-9673
Neil Turkowitz RIAA USA (202) 857-9647
Steve Redmond BPI UK +44 (0)20 7803 1324
Peter Jamieson BPI UK +44 (0) 20 7803 1311
Matt Phillips BPI UK 44 (0) 77 3951 4963
Michael Haentjes IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-0
Peter Zombik IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-0
Jean never Foitzik IFPI Germany +49 (30) 59 00 38-23
Herve Rony SNEP France +33 (1) 44 13 66 66
Graham Henderson CRIA Canada 1 (416) 967-7272 ext. 102
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Not buying their stuff IS NOT the solution. That is doing nothing. If it was a solution, we would have had an effect long ago. There are BILLIONS of consumers on this planet - how many know what DRM is and what it does?
99.9% of consumers have no idea or care less about DRM and what it does. This is the exact opposite of the feelings of those who do care. They do not yet realize the implications or the restrictions. They buy a CD and listen to it on their CD player. Their DVDs work in their DVD player. They buy an MP3 and listen to it on their iPod. End of story.
In a few years they may realize that MP3 isn't going to be playable on their new fancy phone with a zillion features and won't transfer to their new googlePod (gPod) or their new PC or laptop. The new HD/Blu-Ray player won't even play CDs and it's possible some DVDs or HD-DVDs may not work if they've already been used in another piece of equipment. Their Windows Media Center Vista2 won't play it either, due to it's DRM. You won't be able to rent video games anymore at blockbuster, because games will be locked to a single game console.
But by then the RIAA/MPAA or whatnot has their money and they've legislated their DRM to be a part of life and law.... Is this what you want? Go ahead, don't buy their stuff - let everyone else suffer.
If something is not done now, by those who do understand the implications, nothing will ever be done.
Having the attitude that nobody is forcing them to buy their stuff is asinine. You have to stand up and make yourself HEARD!
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
It seems to be their fallback position. Oh we're losing money? It's because of piracy.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
I would agree with you that it isn't theft. It's more a breach of contract. DRM is an attempt by the producer to enforce their agreement with the consumer. The agreement they offer is this (vaguely) "You give us money. We'll let you listen to the music. You agree not to give the music to any one else." Before DRM, this agreement was widely violated. Fair use defines your rights to some things with the music. It doesn't obligate them to facilitate those things. You could argue for example that you can make backup copies of DVDs. But, before DVD John, there wasn't any way to do it (macrovision prevents copying to VCR).
IIRC, every time we buy blank CDs (DVDs too?), we pay a hidden fee that is collected by the government to offset artists losses to music piracy. Even if you never buy from the big labels, you are still affected by the laws they get congress to pass.
By the way, has anyone seen or heard of an artist actually getting a check from these fees? It seems to me that small-time artists should be just as entitled as those who signed with members of the RIAA.
science is a religion
It would be interseting to a torrent site start listing where to mail compensation directly to the artist/creator, maybe include a public rating system where the users determine what they consider is a fair value too.
:D
Add in an anonymous way to pay, to protect them from the **AA's attorneys/spies, and someone will notice...
Imagine if AllofMP3.com started mailing checks directly to the artists, bypassing the labels. I bet the checks would still get cashed, with a big smile on their faces too.
Mod +1 Excellent Analogy.
"Long time listener, first time caller."
"Put your self in their shoes. Pretend for a moment that you produce something of value (from what I've read on /. that will be a huge stretch ). Then, consider that someone is giving it away for free. Then, you will understand DRM."
/. crowd that puts work into some sort of product that has great value to many people, and its then given away for free.
There couldnt possibly be any one in the
Your right, people only do things for profit, i forgot that we are in a neolibiral world here, and that we all have to fall in like cows to the slaughter. if THEY say we NEED DRM, they THEY must be right, because god forbid that THEY lose a couple billion dollars in profits next year.
-EL
But a tax on that sure pissed a lot of them off.
>campaigning to get major artists moved over to our labels
Major artists are going to expect expensive promotion. Remember Michael Jackson suing his label over just that issue? An independent label isn't going to be able to afford wall-to-wall advertising or, more important, payola. If one did agree to move, it seems logical to expect ruinous litigation even if their contract allows moving to another label.
The strategy for such a new-era label would have to be signing new artists before they get indentured. It would be easy to offer them better terms, but not so easy to dangle the illusion of becoming a Big Star in front of them.
Does the idea of a label still make sense in a world where artists can edit their own music, burn their own CDs, and sell from their own websites?
That doesn't seem to be true. There are businesses selling DRM-free music. They have been mentioned in the "Alternatives" thread, and elsewhere. As an example, eMusic is listed as the #2 retailer of downloadable music. There are many artists giving away their music or selling it directly to fans in order to get people to come to their shows. It is only a small conglomerate of labels that feels they need DRM in order to stay alive. They might be right, but do not equate the continued profits of those few businesses with the success of music and culture in general. I would be interested to see any articles or statements from non-RIAA labels in support of DRM. I honestly haven't heard any. Isn't competition also an essential concept in free market economics?
You mean, how will you get paid more than 7 cents per song for your efforts? Eliminating the massive overhead that goes into distributing music via the current monopoly model will likely enable artists to be better off. Plus, it's not like all artists made a living before. Your question should actually be, "How will our few multimillion-dollar pop stars continue to get paid for their efforts?" Because an incredible number of talented musicians are already making no money under the current model. Artists will get paid because people like their music. People will pay to be the first to receive the new music, even if it can be freely distributed after that. People will pay for shows, for signed editions, and to encourage the production of more stuff they like.
I'm unfortunately not much of a kid anymore, but let's not forget that DRM applies to a lot more than music. It's being used by libraries on their audio books. It is applied to eBooks, including literature and educational materials. It's applied to the software that runs, well, just about everything these days. We are letting the companies who own this DRM technology dictate under what terms we can educate ourselves (and our kids) in ways that we have never allowed before. What are the ramifications of this?
Even if it's true that we need to provide a greater incentive to people to create useful works, that would only point to a need to find a better way to do it than restricting access to those works, since such restrictions have wide-ranging impacts (like bringing down entire incredibly useful infrastructures like P2P). Copyright was conceived to be exactly such a device; something artificial to promote useful works. So we have room to come up with other such devices if need be.
No, but the benefit of exclusive ownership of copyrighted works to the rights-holder does need to be balanced against the benefit to society. That's what it says in the Constitution, anyway. Copyright has a limited term of ownership (even though that keeps getting longer) and is not like physical property in ways that others around here have already explained. Creation should be rewarded, but the kind of exclusive control required to justify DRM is an attempt to turn this into a kind of property it was never intended to be.
I agree that we need to have a society that supports artists and musicians. It's a littl
It's not that simple. You see, these people are trying to twist OUR laws and OUR government into something that serves only them. While it is doubtful that calling them and letting them know that we do not approve will change anything, it is the polite thing to do, after all.
Perhaps, but in a professional, proactive business relationship, attempts should be made to clarify where things went wrong and what can be done to rectify the problems
What's more childish: the person who says "I don't like what you are doing and I'm not going to tell you what you are doing wrong or why I don't like it" or the person who says "I don't like what you are doing and here is what you are doing wrong and why I don't like it"?
Maybe. If they truly don't care, then we can put them on the record as saying so, and use it as evidence of their selfishness in what they do and why their proposed laws that favor only them should be ignored.
Nathan's blog
It is also very unproductive, unprofessional and will get little attention if they were to call for a giant anonymous bitch campaign.
DRM will take away rights of free speech and property. If you followed all the things they are trying to do, you would see that.
For one thing, it would take away your ability to choose an OS. Most likely everyone would be forced to use the crappiest OS I have ever seen. How many for-profit competitors of Microsoft have you seen lately? You certainly won't be able to use an open source OS. The DRM consortium wouldn't allow it, and couldn't for obvious reasons--it would undermine the whole system. They tried to make DRM legally mandated, however even if they don't get any laws passed a certain company could make it so you couldn't send email to 90% of users because their systems are DRM only. It would be an obvious violation of anti-trust laws, but their response would be: "...but the music and movie companies made us do this!" Just another excuse to get away with ruining the software market. This is not only limited to the OS, they could limit other types of software as well.
They have also talked about a sort of broadcast delete system where they could send a message to the network which tells every computer to erase a particular file to "combat piracy" by eliminating files they decide is "pirated." So if you have a document criticizing the RIAA (or government), they can just send the hash code for the file, and all the copies of that file are gone. This not only has freedom of speech implications, but this is entering 1984 territory.
One thing they will also likelly do is make it really expensive to broadcast anything. If you want to send files to more than just a few people (or perhaps anyone) you will have to pay the DRM cartel a very high fee to sign your key--more than most common people could afford...and some of you thought VeriSign was bad! If you don't think this will happen, look at the radio spectrum. Common people are limited to a very small set of bands. WiFi had to be put on the same band as Microwave ovens interfere. If you want to be more advanced, you have to get a license from the FCC where they test you on a whole bunch procedures and technicalities. Corporations have bought the vast majority of the spectrum (which should be everyone's to use--it goes through all of our airspace.) It has gone to the point where you have to pay to use wireless communication (cell phones). Why isn't local site to site communication free? Because the entertainment cartel made it that way. They created legalities to suppress the general public's ability to send radio broadcasts.
You may think "they can't just do this things. People will complain." The problem is they won't do it all instantly. It will progress slowly, so the people won't notice until it's too late.
I could go on, but I have other things I need to do...
so they are placing restrictions on the ability to obtain and share information based on the possibility that some users may abuse that ability?
hmmm.....
You should sign up because signing up makes you accountable. Slashdot users never like to be accountable for anything, and that is not a personal attack; I include myself in that subset. There is no philosophical dilemma here, you're just getting stuck in the groupthink of slashdot...SIGNS UP BAD...METALLICA GOOD!
This however has puzzled scientists all over the world since global warming does not seem to be declining, despite all of these phonebooks upon phonebooks of pirates appearing everywhere.
Uhhh, yes? Posted to /. as an AC lately? Captchas ring a bell? Not to mention that they are the ones who organized this event, and as someone who has organized several events for professional groups in the past, it's nice to know who all participated.
Check out http://www.projectopus.com/
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Groklaw did it with pizza.
I want the part of Dewey. I like the color of his sweater. Also, I'd consider printing up your complaints on paper; I always had trouble getting my point across when pretending to be Donald Duck or any of his relatives.
Back in the archaic era of the 1960's, a well-known troublemaker named Saul Alinsky wrote a book entitle "Rules for Radicals". It was full of fun suggestions for community organizing. His point was that political organizing should be fun to those being organized, and should break the rules in unexpected ways for the folks in power.
1 /qid=1151087597/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4090430-9772802?_ encoding=UTF8
It can still be found on Amazon used:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679721134/sr=8-
That is perhaps the best analogy I've ever read of the situation and this will finally enable me to explain to my mum why I'm so against DRM... thank-you.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Because like it or not they control 90+% of the music we can buy out there and they won't change their policies unless we tell them WHY their policies are bad. How hard is that to understand?
If they get say 10,000 calls questioning their DRM policies that WILL make them think because they know for everyone that bothers to call there are a 100 who think the same thing who haven't called.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Sorry, METALLICA !=GOOD, and it's quite ironic that Metallica would be your choice considering their in-beddedness with the RIAA on the issue at hand. :) I take that back, this is /. and you were probably making a point circuitously.
"Why should I have to sign up?"
Don't sign up then.
Make a difference and Digg the story. When enough Diggers see this too, there will be Voice Mail hell to pay for the RIAA.
I tried finding a Digg story with more diggs, but that was all that came up in a search for Defective By Design.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
He's not talking about the regular phone book. You don't have a copy of it.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
The original motivation behind all of that is to prevent someone from making an identical copy of the Big Mac. It is impossible to prevent copying (assuming that the Big Mac is digital), but the people writing all this stuff are desperately in denial of that fact, so they spin their wheels saying things like "You shall not reverse engineer..." that ultimately do little to reduce copying, but do succeed in inconveniencing legitimate customers off.
These people are not protesting the music. Not buying RIAA music will not stop DRM (not in time). The big fear is that you won't be able to play DRMed content without DRM hardware, or possible find reasonably price non-DRM hardware.
/.).
Read up on DRM. Find out what is happening. If you are fine with it, Okay. But I don't expect that you will. And then, think about the fact that ignoring the RIAA and the MPAA and not buying their content has only made then more aggressive. Passive protest hasn't worked (i.e. bitching on
We need to get involved; We need to get others involved. Tell your friends, tell your mom, tell your congressman.
ClamIAm: Oops, I hadn't seen that. Mods, please disable voting.
An identical copy of the Big Mac, that is, a bit-for-bit copy of something you download from iTMS, is completely useless to anyone but you unless you've discovered the key stored on your computer that allows iTunes to decrypt the file to perform its limited set of allowed operations. If you discover the key you can distribute that to your friends and they can use it to play back the files. If you discover the encryption algorithm as well you can decrypt the file so that anyone can access the information stored in the file.
With its DRM-applied media, which is what the DMCA really applies to, Apple could sue you for copyright violation if you spread the files on your favorite P2P. But they'd probably just laugh at everyone that downloaded them instead. Copyright laws, for a group like the RIAA, are too lax, too un-uniform (across different companies) and too hard to enforce. DRM lets them make whatever rules they want, apply them everywhere, and enforce them perpetually without any effort. The DMCA basically protects their ability to set those rules.
In that sense, it's ironic that the the law is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, because its effect is to make actual copyright laws, set by governments, irrelevant.
At least that's my understanding.
Actually, I was making a reference to a flash video that came out about five years ago making fun of Lars and Ulrich. I don't even remember the website, but it was fucking hilarious.
"Why should I have to sign up? Just post the damn numbers"...
Actually, it IS a form of Digital Rights Management. They are managing the rights to those digits...
Place nail here >+
Thanks for the well written response. I'm sure our disagreement is at the most fundamental level. We have different premises.
I want to be free to produce, and to decide with whom and under what circumstances I share my productivity. It's mine. It isn't for society to decide their best use of it.
Arguments that revolve around "what's best for society" are extremely frightening to me. Who gets to define society's needs? I'm not a Liberal by any stretch, but I certainly wouldn't approve of the Conservatives deciding "what's best for society" and forcing their views on the Liberals. We should all be free to decide for ourselves (to the extent possible).
Freedom has an awkward side. I want to freely enter into agreements, or choose not to. I want to declare my terms and have the other party agree or disagree, or offer alternative terms for me to consider. The awkward side is, that I must allow others to do the same. It is not for me to declare that, since the recording industries terms are unacceptable to me that their terms are invalid, and I we should ignore them
As so many people have posted: if you don't agree, don't buy the music.
As for the non-DRM music sources, that's awesome! There's a market opportunity for a music publisher to provide a "better" product. They are free to do that. As they should be free not to.
>> No, but the benefit of exclusive ownership of copyrighted works to the rights-holder does need to be balanced against the benefit to society
Part of my point is to make a subtle distinction that your right to fair use does not impose a duty for the music industry to make that easy. DRM does not remove any of your fair use rights. Though, it does have that effect. On the flip side, if someone "cracks" the DRM solution, then (to me) that's the DRM producer's problem, not society's.
>Are you really OK with the idea... The Constitution is already copyright free. You can't put it in a book and declare that because the book has a copyright that you own the rights to the original. You are free to use the words from the Constitution without copyright limitations. However, If you wanted to republish the book, or even pages from the book, then too bad. As it should be.
In reality, it our collective culture belongs to each and every one of us. We, in the United States (or rather, our founders), had decided that a *temporary* monopoly on distribution is in the best interests of our society as a whole, since it encourages people to expend effort in the creation of cultural works (art, music, film, etc.).
The fact that the term of this *temporary* monopoly power over distribution of cultural works has been continually increasing, apparently without limit, is insulting to our population and injurious to the process of creating more cultural works. This injury to the process happens because all culture is built on the foundation of the body of culture which precedes it. Locking up this body of culture pre-empts building upon it. Disney, for example, builds many of its works on public-domain fairy tales and such, but avoids at all costs releasing their works for others to build upon.
If the media conglomerates distributed works with rights management which would expire at the time as the associated copyrights, it would be somewhat less insulting and injurious.
There is also, however, the problem of "fair-use" rights which are also eroded by the usage of so-called "digital rights management" technology.
Most posts seem to be oriented towards the short-term problem of "fair-use" while ignoring the longer-term problems associated with virtually unlimited copyright terms.
"The people that produce and distribute it are willing to let you listen to it,_if_ you are willing to agree to their terms. You don't have to agree to their terms. But, then you don't get to listen."
I can live with that. I keep my money and they can keep their over priced, restrictive and mostly crappy material. Screw 'em, I'll bet they miss me more than I miss them. But then even GOOD music is only at best a minuscule part of a happy life, for me anyways. This applies to DRM and to proprietary formats and technology's as well.
Matthew
Apple should also be targeted in this campaign, because they still use DRM, albeit for a different reason - they use DRM to tie your media to their products. Their DRM is probably even worse for it, it's so easy to say "If the DRM is so easy to break without even using hacking tools, they even publicize how to break it, why have the DRM in the first place?" Apple got the media companies thinking about online distribution, but they also seemed to 'legitimize DRM'.
Said magical book is usually called the "Blue Book". It is sold by your local phone company (well, a middle-man publishes it), and contains all numbers that people are paying for; they usually cross reference by street address the number rings, as well as the full name of whomever is paying for the number (or name of a business). Also included are payphone numbers and locations.
I've utilized this tome at two seperate jobs I had whilst lower on the food chain; as a cab dispatcher, this was an indispensible tool for verifying valid addresses (when you have shady customers trying to put you on, or out-of-towners who got lost). When I (briefly) was forced to work in telemarketting, the "book" (this time in electronic form) was used to generate "leads".
As I spent a couple of years in the cab dispatch position, I watched the book's usefulness slide downhill; with VOIP and cellphones encroaching on the traditional telecom providers, the book was increasingly less accurate. Caller-id, which was the technology that enabled us to use the Blue Book to verify where the customer was calling from, also began to slide in terms of accuracy (what with the drug dealers and pimps learning how to spoof addresses, and of course knowing the address where the cell phone bill gets sent gets you nowhere...).
Performing sanity checks on your own beliefs is vital in avoiding poisoned koolaid.
DO we need to quote you Courtney Love so you know how well compensated the artists really are?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Mandela broke the law.
Enough said about respecting all laws.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.