Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How to Turn A Music Lover to Piracy

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the self-defeating-drm dept.

dugn writes to tell us The Consumerist is running a story about how a run of the mill (read non-tech-savvy) music lover was pushed to become a pirate. "I've devoted a not-inconsequential chunk of my life to collecting music; to tracking down obscure records, cassettes, 8-Tracks and CD's of all genres and styles. And now apparently that is all but over. Music has somehow evolved from tangible things into amorphous collections of 1's and 0's guarded over by interested parties as if they were gold bullion. How so very sad."

45 of 521 comments (clear)

  1. hmmm... by User+956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Music has somehow evolved from tangible things into amorphous collections of 1's and 0's

    What? Music has always been data. This guy isn't a music lover, he's a memorabilia lover.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:hmmm... by grub · · Score: 4, Insightful


      What? Music has always been data.

      That's right. Way back in Vienna, before their falling out, Prince-Archbishop Colloredo would pay Mozart rather well for his data.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:hmmm... by RobertNotBob · · Score: 5, Insightful
      For Fifteen THOUSAND Years ( I am NOT exagerating) Music was a service that people provided to each other.

      Then, some guy (named Edison) created an anomily. A peculiar quirk of technology that turned it inot a PRODUCT.

      Luckily, technology has come around to return Music to it's proper place. It is now, once again, a Service

      That's hat really bug me about the music industry. They are trying to sell a Service, like it was a Product, and then they have the audasity to blame US for their problems. RIAA, here's a free clue for you. "Contempt of Business Model" is not a crime. Your market was a fluke; an abhoration of technology that has been corrected. Just like that buggy-whip manufacturer in the oft-quoted Danny Devito flick, your time has passed. Adapt, or die. Just like every body else.

      --
      ___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
    3. Re:hmmm... by omeomi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What? Music has always been data. This guy isn't a music lover, he's a memorabilia lover.

      It hasn't always been digital data...It hasn't even always been recordable data...prior to analog recording techniques, the only way to record a song was to write it down and learn to play it yourself. And before notation, the only way to copy a song was to listen to somebody else play it, and lean to play it yourself (still the most rewarding way to learn new music, IMHO)

      --
      ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
    4. Re:hmmm... by Sneakernets · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you are absolutely correct. Music is a temporal art. It's a shame those poor "Artists" are going to have to start being "artists" again, performing. That's where the money is, anyway. not the Albums.

      --
      "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
    5. Re:hmmm... by User+956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It hasn't always been digital data...It hasn't even always been recordable data...prior to analog recording techniques, the only way to record a song was to write it down and learn to play it yourself.

      Of course, but the author of the article is conflating the information with the media. His real complaint is that the music industry is transitioning from a convenient media system to an inconvenient media system.

      Whether or not the music data is stored Digitally, or in an Analog fashion is irrelevant. Music hasn't evolved into data, just like any other kind of information hasn't evolved into data in the transition from oral tradition to magnetic storage.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    6. Re:hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're saying that people didn't play music at various festivals and pagan celebrations, just for the sheer joy of it before the year 1000 AD? I find that hard to believe. So Romans, Mayans, Egyptians, Vikings, Akkadians, Greeks, et al had no concept of non-religious music? What was Nero doing as Rome burned then?

      I bet music as a service to other people existed from day number two after Ogg the Caveman learned to beat two trees together and formed Stone Zeppelin.

    7. Re:hmmm... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, I have heard of bard, troubadours, etc.. They became prominenet...in the Late Baroque era. Like I said. And most of them traveled from fiefdom to fiefdom and sang and played...for kings and lords, also like I said. It was the only way they could eat; playing for commoners (though it did happen on occassion) didn't fill the stomach until the economy could support it (think late classical period).

      I think you are neglecting the quite proliferate history of an oral tradition through song amongst various indigenous peoples, which is a common pattern all over the world. It was quite commonly accompanied by instrumentation, typically percussion.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:hmmm... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The oral tradition, by and large, was a religious one.

      Only insofar as religion is involved in everything in these people's lives. For example, many Native American peoples attribute[d] a spirit to basically everything. In such a case, everything they do is "religious". Is it then still accurate to characterize such work as "religious"?

      I would argue that the [psuedo]historical aspect is more significant, at least to those particular people, than the religious. It would more accurately be termed "spiritual", but again, so would their entire life.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:hmmm... by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For the lion's share of the first 14/15ths, nearly all music was for religious purposes, so at best it was a service by people for their gods

      Untrue. This was "high music," as in the music of the high culture, but the low culture (which didn't have the advantage of writing the official history) produced music as well. You're not seriously asserting that no one but priests sang a note, are you? That's like saying there was never any literature other than the bible. Of course there was. It's just that the church had the means to record what they were doing.

      Just so you know, I've been playing in renaissance music ensembles for decades, so I know what I'm talking about. (15th century music, on historical replicas of the instruments.) A lot of what we play is dance music, and they ain't dances for the gods.

      So, please. Folk were probably singing before they were talking.
    10. Re:hmmm... by misleb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The oral tradition, by and large, was a religious one. They preserved their creation, law, and holy stories (all functions of religion, esp. in your indigenous peoples) via music, and


      I don't quite understand why you make such a distinction between music for religious purposes and music for "pleasure." I mean, for these people it was more than just religion, it was their culture. They didn't really have such distinctions like church/state, religion/pop culture.

      used music both as a mnemonic device and to spice the stories up a bit.


      Kinda like how I use music today. Nothing helps me remember the lyrics to songs better than the music. And I'm a big fan of Bob Dylan... so there is your "spicing up stories" right there.

      Anyway, so what was your point, again? I guess I missed it.

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    11. Re:hmmm... by danpsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It gave people for mere pennies the ability to buy a service that once took a king's fortune to procure; really? from what I remember of musical history most people got to listen to music for free and were encouraged to donate to the travelling bard or musician. Granted history could be wrong and all artists commanded millions of rupees/gold coins/diamonds per performance from the kings of the world. I am betting that that is not the case, most musicians worked for very little and gave away their craft, incredibly few were the "rock stars" that sold their creations for incredulous amounts of money. (Yes Mozart, Beethoven, and their likes were the exception and not the rule.) Also most music was blatantly stolen. Most Irish jigs are variations of other jigs, and so on. Most of music's evolution is based on the original freedom and freeness the music had. Paying huge sums of money all the time to musicians is a weird phenomenon of the past 50 years that is not the norm and will correct it's self. No matter what the RIAA and stars-in-their-eyes musicians want, it will change back to the way it was.

      I love your point and I myself would add a few things. As kind of a musician myself, I think nowadays is the best time to be a musician. And that has nothing to do with money. It's the best time now to be any kind of artist. Anyone doing it merely for the beauty of art will find that you can create works of art with little to no investment. You can buy half decent recording equipment for a couple hundred dollars, and with the Internet you can have a fanbase like in no other time, generated from nothing but your own blood sweat and tears. The fact of the matter is that most musicians, in the past, in the present and in the future reach no one with their art. They are born, they live and they die, creating art or performing and 99% of them never amount to even a record contract. Nowadays, you don't even have to have a record contract to have others enjoy your music. You can make your track and send it all around the world to your friends and family and anyone else who might be interested all for very little cost. The same thing exists for writers today, for programmers, for anyone. If you want to do your work professionally, you want to not have to do anything but play rock music, gather enough to get a tour together and get a fanbase. However, unlike the bard of day's past we can afford to eat and still practice our crafts in our freetime without having to live on the street or beg or borrow to do it.

      --
      Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
    12. Re:hmmm... by C0rinthian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good god, this is rediculous.

      We live in a world where someone can make a functionally identical recording of a performance quickly and easily, and do so in bulk. Said recordings can be played as many times as desired through relatively cheap hardware.

      In essence, a CD player and some speakers can functionally replace ANY music performer. This is very consistent and very cheap to do. With our current music culture the only thing a concert is good for is to see personalities on stage (I hesitate to call them musicians) and to see an expensive show. (Pyrotechnics, etc)

      So you tell me how a performer can compete with technology without any kind of legal protections. If someone can record my performance and play it in their nightclub every night of the week, why the hell would they pay me to do it live?

      Don't get me wrong. I disagree with a lot of things in the music industry. Especially the flagrant abuse of copyright by major labels. But thinking that you can apply a business model from 500 years ago to the current market is just as rediculous.

    13. Re:hmmm... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the earth is about 6500 years old. It says so right in the Bible, so it must be true. All this billions-of-years-old stuff is a scheme concocted by the evil scientists who are all in league with Satan to trick us into losing our faith!

      Lest you think this is a joke, this is what between 1/3 and 1/2 of the USA's population believes. Much of Turkey's population believes similar things (i.e. that Darwin's theory is false), so take that into consideration before you admit them into the EU.

    14. Re:hmmm... by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Consider for a minute that an even larger percentage of the EU beleives in things like Homeopathy, and "the healing touch".

      Right. Religion is only one brand of nonsense. Before they start acting snobbish and turning Turkey away, they may wish to clean up their own house first.

    15. Re:hmmm... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a shame those poor "Artists" are going to have to start being "artists" again, performing. That's where the money is, anyway. not the Albums.

      The fact that 2006 US music sales included 588.2 million albums and 581.9 million digital tracks indicates that there is perhaps a bit of money in the field of selling albums and music, and not just performing.

      When it is so patently obvious that owning music is worth quite a bit to hundreds of millions of people, the old argument that recorded music "should" just be used to draw people to concerts seems more than a little self-serving.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    16. Re:hmmm... by xaxa · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I pay to see it live because of the different atmosphere. In a small gig it's more intimate, you can talk/shout at the band, clap/sing along, and most people are looking at the band. If they're a bit weird there might be more entertainment, e.g. dancing, clothes, etc.

      Big concerts are amazing, probably my favourite form of entertainment. It's a combination of several thousand like-minded people, all "dancing" in time to the music, many of them "singing" along, I find it really exhilarating. I can scream along to the words but no one can hear me, act like a lunatic and not care in the slightest, dance all the time (well, jump up and down in time...) and really just go wild for a few hours. I then leave, utterly exhausted and drenched in other people's sweat (and once or twice blood...) with a buzz that lasts for days.

      I suspect church-goers (in places where it's popular, so not here...) might get some of that feeling with a really uplifting song.

      In a nightclub the music is less relevant -- if it's of a style I like it doesn't usually matter if I know it or not, sometimes I'll hear the first few seconds of something I love and run to the dancefloor, but usually my attention is on my friends. Or sometimes the music is completely irrelevant for a few hours ;) and I don't notice twenty songs have gone by.

      Disclaimer: I am crazy. The people most people think of as crazy think I'm crazy. So YMMV.

    17. Re:hmmm... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a bit of a difference between homeopathy and religion, however: I've never heard of homeopaths committing violence, banding together in huge groups, or any of the other things large, organized religions are famous for.

      Also, homeopathy and other such things have become quite popular here in the USA, too. Personally, I blame it on the medical community, and on the government and its stance on medical research, pharmaceutical patents, and universal healthcare and insurance (or lack thereof). In a nutshell, people have a lot of illnesses and problems (such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, etc.) which the medical community completely ignores and provides no treatment at all for, and worse tells these sufferers that "it's all in your head". So, desperate, they of course go to anyone who promises to help them.

      If we spent the money we have on wars on medical research instead, if we provided normal people with decent insurance, if we took away pharmaceutical patents and put all medical research into the hands of highly-funded government and academic labs (the way Cuba, a world leader in medicine does) instead of corporations bent on profit who refuse to research things which aren't highly profitable, then people wouldn't have a need to turn to these mystical "alternative" treatments which are most likely, but not necessarily, bunk.

    18. Re:hmmm... by chill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I fail to see the justification for restriction of fair use rights... regardless of disclaimers. And I'm not entirely certain that all flavors of DRM let you rip music to your computer (without violating the DMCA).

      Dude, he uses and iPod and buys music thru iTunes. iTunes sells nothing but fair-use-restricted, DRM-encumbered music. The schmuck isn't complaining about DRM, he is complaining about the other guys DRM that doesn't play nice with his iPod. He seems to be fine with DRM as long as it works with his toys. He's a fuckwit.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  2. Correction by Daishiman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some people want us to belive that being a pirate is contradictory to being a music lover. Such a contradiction does not exist. Some of the people that I know that have the greatest appreciation for musica pirate like mad, and still spend hundreds on concerts and vinyl and have their very own bands.

    1. Re:Correction by rdforsyth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a musician myself who plays in a band, and releases albums. I have no problem with people downloading my music (infact, most of our music is up for free), because I know people are going to buy a copy if they like it, and allowing downloads gives more people a chance to like us and buy a cd. *MOST* people are into material possesions, and will buy a copy. The others support us by word of mouth and attending the concerts we put on. It's a win-win situation for us independants :)

      --
      Ryan
  3. Piracy = Freedom by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    tee hee ... It has allowed me to listen to bubblegum pop without the scornful looks of music store clerks and no embarrassing CDs to hide when friends stop over.

  4. An audiobook lover moves to piracy. by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love audio books, mostly because I work out, and learn stuff at the same time. I love my audible subscription, but after buying books from Audible that are DRM'ed, and running into extreme troubles playing them on one of my "non-approved" MP3 players, or running into trouble trying to convert the files into MP3 so I can actually use them in my car, I started downloading them off of bittorrent sites.

    And that is the funny thing. I have been downloading the *EXACT* same books that I have paid Audible for from bittorrent. I have no problem buying Audio Books - but when I buy them, the DRM gets in my way, and I cannot always listen to the book I paid for in the manner I want. I *WANT* to pay for the books, I have no problem with that. I just want to be able to listen to them as I choose, not as the company controlling them chooses.

    In the same way, I have found myself downloading MP3's of music that I already own on CD because it is faster for me to download the music that I already have, than to go through my CD collection and rip all the music.

    I cannot see any of these industries surviving for long when they stand in the way of what consumers who are willing to pay for what actually want. The Barenaked ladies have it right. The author of this article is correct, we are being driven to piracy. At least I have never used Rhino.

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    1. Re:An audiobook lover moves to piracy. by MattyCobb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have wondered that myself. My car was broken into about 4 years ago. I lost about 200 CDs (yeah yeah I shouldn't have my whole collection in my car...) and while my CD player and my audio system that were stolen were covered by my insurance, my CDs were not. They told me I had to file that under homeowners insurance... which I don't have... because I don't have a home... I have an apartment. Now I have 'pirated' most all of these albums back. I still have the CD cases to prove I owned them. If I really purchased a license, then this wouldn't matter... right? I mean all I lost was some plastic covered foil and I retain my rights to the audio... I think.

      On the other hand if I never owned these albums at all, shouldn't the RIAA be after whoever robbed my car while resupplying me with new copies of those CDs? :)

      All kidding aside, I have often wondered about the legality of what I did.

      Now if you excuse me I have to run before the DMCA Death Squads gets here.

      --

      Matt
      You have 1 Moderator Point! Use it or lose it! Is that a threat? -vapid
  5. Been there, done that by John3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've also been frustrated by trying to mix and match different music listening formats in the digital age. iTunes music doesn't show up on my Windows Media Center via my Xbox 360 and some WMA downloaded songs can't be listened to on my iPod. I own about 800 LP's and nearly 1000 CD's so I too have fattened the pockets of Sony/BMG/Warner/etc. over the past thirty years. The music industry is due for a collapse of epic proportions...just read today that music sales are down 20% so far in 2007. Here's hoping the entire industry falls apart and artists can start dealing with fans directly.

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
  6. Sand on a beach by Ilex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with the mafiaa is that they have turned their back on the traditional physical ownership aspects of music in favour of a rental, pay to play model.

    Trying to sell digital information on the internet is literally like trying to sell sand on a beach. It's infinitely available. They're using DRM to create the illusion of scarcity, kind of like shovelling sand back into the sea, what they're really doing is just digging a big hole for themselves instead of trying to find somewhere which doesn't have any sand (improving their business model). When the tide comes in they'll just bury their heads and hope for the best.

  7. Not pushed or forced... chose by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm no fan of the draconian restrictions that exist on most digital music, but this guy was not "pushed to become a pirate" or "forced to become a pirate". He downloaded material without bothering to make sure that what he was downloading was what he needed in order to play the music.

    This entire blog post should be retitled "Why I chose to become a pirate, and how my own ignorance of media formats helped it along." The guy made a mistake (downloading WMA format music to play on an iPod) and rather than deal with it and eat his $10 losses, decided that he would rather get his music for free.

    Please... if you pirate music, good for you. But don't claim it was forced on you, and don't claim that you didn't choose to do it of your own free will. Man up and take responsibility for you actions.

    Note: I am not a record-industry shill, I'm just sick of people justifying their actions in order to clear their consciences.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:Not pushed or forced... chose by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're just mincing words here, but I'd say it's valid to argue he was at least "pushed" towards becoming a music pirate. He obviously wasn't originally someone who had any desire to take a free copy of an album over a purchased one. In fact, his very last purchase was supposedly made despite finding the very same songs he was seeking on the net as a free download!

      It sounds like he's simply saying he was always willing to spend his money on music, as long as he got 3 things out of the transaction. First, he expected to receive a good quality recording (better than what he'd get from some 2nd. generation copy). Second, he expected that some of his money would find its way back to the artist, to ensure they were fairly compensated for their work. And lastly, he expected the music to be playable on any device that advertised itself as capable of performing a music playback operation on that type of media. (EG. A tape player should play back ANY audio cassette he purchased. A record player should play back ANY vinyl record he purchased. And an iPod should play back ANY digital music purchases of his.)

      The current state of the industry means those requirements are no longer being universally met - so yes, that effectively "pushes" him towards looking at piracy as a more viable alternative.

    2. Re:Not pushed or forced... chose by Khaed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've downloaded albums that I own, because I didn't feel like getting around the DRM, and I want all of my music on my computer, rather than changing CDs and wearing my cupholder out. Yes, I *chose* to "pirate" the music. But I paid for it, too.

      He spent $10 on the music. He shouldn't have to check formats and DRM licenses, especially licenses that *would not download* (did you get that far?). He was trying to gain the ability to listen to the music he downloaded legally. And he couldn't do it. From TFA:

      In the end, I never was able to get the music to play on anything--my computer, on a CD or on my iPod. I invested $10, several hours of my time, and my reward was, well, nothing.

      He *couldn't get it to play* because the license wouldn't download. This was after he passed up getting the music for free in a .zip file in order to support the band. You can't just chalk this up to "he would rather get his music for free." He wanted to pay for it. But he wanted to be able to listen to it, too.

      The guy guesstimated having spent $20,000 on music in his life. He's not the type who'd rather get it for free -- sounds like he was happily paying out the nose for music, when it worked. This guy was a model customer for the music industry and he just got pissed off when anti-piracy measures bit him in the ass.

      Which is something a lot of people on /. say often: DRM and other protection schemes tend to only annoy legitimate customers. Those who want to pirate will find a way.

    3. Re:Not pushed or forced... chose by nbannerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He downloaded material without bothering to make sure that what he was downloading was what he needed in order to play the music.

      CDs and cassettes have been runaway successes in the past precisely because they avoided this kind of problem; you didn't need to 'research' anything to get what you wanted. You buy the CD, it works in any CD player. Of course various companies have got egg on their face when they tried to ignore the red book standards; hello Sony.

      So a consumer assumed downloadable music would work the same way. A rather honest mistake in my eyes. I don't think the onus should be on consumers to research downloadable music, the players and the various formats.

      As for his actions afterwards, well, that is a different matter. But I don't think anyone should be made to jump through hoops just to get an online content.

    4. Re:Not pushed or forced... chose by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe not "forced to pirate", but they definitely sent the message that doing business with record companies in a legitimate manner means throwing money away for no return. They sent the message that, if you just want to listen to music, and you're not a computer genius, you're better off downloading illegal DRM-free copies.

      The guy made a mistake (downloading WMA format music to play on an iPod) and rather than deal with it and eat his $10 losses, decided that he would rather get his music for free.

      So what? Why should Joe Sixpack be expected to track the licensing differences between WMA and AAC? If I went to a record store, spent $10 on a cassette, and then went back and wanted to exchange it for a $10 credit on the same album in CD form, you'd be able to do that. (At least, you used to be able to do that) Why not the same for WMAs? If what he really purchased was the right to listen to that music, we shouldn't he be able to retrieve whatever format he likes to exercise that right?

      It sounds more like the record company felt entitled to his $10 whether or not they provided him with anything of value.

    5. Re:Not pushed or forced... chose by mungtor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem seems to be that he purchased the wrong format to begin with because he didn't understand what he was doing. To use your car analogy, it's more like buying a new car that runs on unleaded and then filling it up with diesel and expecting it to work because it works in other cars. And I don't mean that to imply that the guy is stupid at all, just that he didn't take the time to educate himself about what he was trying to do before the forked over his money. It was something new and he thought it would be easy. Turns out that it wasn't. Given that, I don't know how much credence I can lend to the "licenses wouldn't come through" argument.

      (The other solution to this is that since the iPod is the de-facto standard for personal music players at this point Apple could just pony up the money to license the WMA codecs. I'm sure that Microsoft would take the money no matter where it came from)

    6. Re:Not pushed or forced... chose by MeNeXT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like him, I couldn't care less on the format. I want to play it in my car, on my cd player, on my stereo, on my iPod. Like the author I will no longer spend money on DRM'd music unless I can convert it. Unlike the author I do not consider myself a pirate. I don't sail the seas...

      The day I'll start respecting the licenses on music is the day the stop selling it as a product. Choose is it a license or a product? If it's a product stop telling me how it's to be used. If it's a license then I should be able to replace it if it were damaged. If it's too restrictive then it's not worth anything to me.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
  8. Re:What's a Pirate in This Context by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think there's truth to the idea. The problem is, the media companies won't take a stance on what you're paying for when you buy a CD. Are you buying a product, or some kind of license. They won't take a stance because they want to have their cake and eat it too.

    They obviously don't want to say you've "purchased" anything, since it implies that you have some ownership. Ownership implies rights, and they don't want consumers to have any rights. On the other hand, if you've purchased a "license", then it becomes even more ambiguous. What are the terms of the license? When did I agree to it? If I'm purchasing a "license to listen" as you suppose, then what if I play my CD for a friend-- that friend has no license to listen. That friend is as much an "unlicensed listener" as if they downloaded the MP3 from the internet.

    Of course, things would be made more clear if the media companies would simply agree that the issue is simply copyright, and the problem is with mass duplication and distribution. Of course, this is really only sticky because they don't seem to want to stipulate that consumers have fair-use rights or that copyrights have limits. With "licensing", they can continually charge consumers on whatever terms they wish, making the same person pay for the same media content repeatedly (i.e. once for your phone, once for your mp3 player, again when you buy a new mp3 player), but the idea of "fair use" threatens those sorts of business models.

  9. Start with... by zdc · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I imagine you do it with a hat, a bird, and a peg leg.

  10. Re:What's a Pirate in This Context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In this context the term "piracy" refers to the act of making unauthorized duplications of works protected by copyright laws. In this case the works are musical performances contained in files and protected by DRM systems. So in that context I think the term fits perfectly. The music performance, in the form of a computer file (mp3/wma/wav whatever), while under the protection of copyright is being duplicated without proper authorization from the copyright holder. Even if you assume you are "licensing" it rather than "owning" it, the fact is that a copy of the performance is still being duplicated without authorization. That is (in this context) the very definition of "piracy".

  11. Forget RIAA by dmm79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is exactly why I don't even bother paying for music any more. RIAA can't make up their mind about licenses. If I own a CD and lose it, I have to pay for another one, which means I owned the CD that I lost. But RIAA will tell you that you don't own anything, you get a license to listen to it. Ok, then if I lose my CD give me another one for free, right?! And by the way, anybody who owns any vinyls, tapes, or any other kind of media should digitise it as many times as he wants to. At the time you bought those things there was no law about digitising music, therefore you still don't break any laws according to the old license. And why would you even think about what you can or cannon do with the music you bought, forget RIAA and do whatever you want.

  12. That sound that you hear faintly in the background by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    is the sound of the death of an industry. The closer that death comes to us, the louder it will be, but no matter the volume of the sound, you cannot change it into anything other than the sound of death.

    IMO, that is the ONLY possible outcome of the head-on crash of the entertainment industry, technology, and their desire to control the use of content. It may take awhile, but the current entertainment industry will die. It will probably be slow, painful, and not fun to watch but it is inevitable.

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
  13. What goes around and around comes around and ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Records never came with any such restrictions," I said. She replied, "Well they were supposed to, but we weren't able to enforce those licenses back then, and now we can"

    And here you all thought that you owned all those 8 track tapes, when in fact you're just storing them for the company that made them.

    I've seen some of my grandparents' early 45s and they did indeed have a label with a license printed on them. It said things like RCA owned the record and the music on it and all you had was a license to listen to it under certain terms yadda yadda.

    (I think one of the terms was that it had to be a genuine RCA branded player, too. Shades of the CSS licensing scheme! Also mattress tags and video tape "FBI warnings".)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  14. wasted time by llZENll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I've devoted a not-inconsequential chunk of my life to collecting music; to tracking down obscure records, cassettes, 8-Tracks and CD's of all genres and styles."

    Perhaps part of the realization is that was wasted time, as now you can collect music from anyone who ever existed in a matter of seconds. The fun was probably not the music, but the journey, experiences, and people met in doing so.

  15. Only one of many problems by bym051d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They rail against XM and say the satellite companies don't pay their fair share of royalties. I hate to break it to them, but the variety my friends and I have heard on XM has resulted in our purchasing more CDs in the year we've had XM than the previous five years of FM radio listening.

    1. Re:Only one of many problems by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't get it, do you? The RIAA doesn't want you to buy a larger variety of CDs. They want you to buy the same pop CDs as everyone else, which they helpfully play on Top-40 radio for you to listen before you buy. If you buy a bunch of obscure stuff, that just means more work for them having to deal with too many artists and too many different CDs. It's a lot easier if everyone just listens to the same few dozen artists, which the RIAA can manufacture for you instead of wasting time "discovering".

  16. Happy Music Customer by DrRobert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have 6000+ albums on vinyl and CD. I don't buy DRM music online. I shop around online (Amazon etc) until I find CDs at less than 11.99, usually less than 10. I don't buy CDs with DRM. I frequently buy them used for about 5. I'm a happy customer with no issues and have not been or expect to be driven to privacy. I have no pirated CDs. I suspect the whole industry issue is not with DRM; I don't think piracy hurts them that much. What they want is to eliminate the right of resale, where people get their music.

  17. Re:What's a Pirate in This Context by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I spot-checked my music collection and there are no licenses listed on them, only copyrights. Seems cut-and-dry to me.

  18. Re:Not a license to listen by edraven · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What you're talking about isn't a legal restriction on the content itself. Notice you had to specify listening to iTunes music (and should have specified copy protected DVD video. Nothing prevents you from watching your home movie DVDs on your Linux box). You're talking about legal restrictions on circumventing the copy protection placed on the content. This is all complicated, of course, by the lack of "official" implementations of iTunes or DVD players that would not have to circumvent the copy protection in order to play the content. But that scarcity is itself the result of business issues, not legal ones. If Apple wanted to release iTunes for Linux, they could do so without having to lobby for an ammendment.

    Of course the big question is the legality of such copy protections themselves, since they overreach the rights of the copyholders in that they prevent actions that are perfectly legal under fair use.