How to Turn A Music Lover to Piracy

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."

Comments

hmmm...

[User 956]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[grub]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[RobertNotBob]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[omeomi]

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)

Re:hmmm...

[Sneakernets]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

For Fifteen THOUSAND Years

The earth is only 6000 years old, Bob.

Re:hmmm...

[Elemenope]

Hey Bob,

For the vast majority of that fifteen thousand years you speak of, music wasn't a service that people (regular folk, that is) provided each other at all. 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, not for each other. Music for pleasure didn't become decently commonplace until the Baroque era in the West, and even then it was a service of talented professionals for some King or Prince, not the everyday folk.

Edison's phonograph did something indescribably precious. It gave people for mere pennies the ability to buy a service that once took a king's fortune to procure; even in Edison's day concert tickets were waaaaaay out of most people's price range. The easy dissemination of music in data-readable form accounts for the proliferation of music and musical styles that we enjoy today.

The only downide to commoditizing data just like commoditizing anything else, is that inevitably, outside intervention notithstanding, a cartel will form. That's the beef. Don't blame Edison for making possible the musical revolution in the modern world. It really, really, really isn't his fault that the RIAA exists.

p.s. Sorry about the Bob thing. Your nick...I couldn't resist.

Re:hmmm...

[User 956]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[misleb]

For the vast majority of that fifteen thousand years you speak of, music wasn't a service that people (regular folk, that is) provided each other at all. 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, not for each other. Music for pleasure didn't become decently commonplace until the Baroque era in the West, and even then it was a service of talented professionals for some King or Prince, not the everyday folk.

Ever heard of a bard? Geez. It's like you've never read a fantasy novel before...

-matthew

Re:hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[Elemenope]

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).

And respectfully, while fantasy novels on the whole are entertaining and occasionally even thought provoking, are by and large utter shite when it comes to historical accuracy. The closest one comes to historical accuracy in a novel like that is something like "Doomsday Book" by Connie Willis. And that portrayed the late medieval period; ain't no bards there.

Re:hmmm...

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[Elemenope]

The vast majority of celebrations in all the societies you mentioned were religious celebrations, honoring this or that god or mythlogical-historical event. Did music exist that was non-religous? Probably. But was it played for the commoners' consumption? Absolutely not. Musicians played when they could get paid, becuase that's how they survived. The nobles/priests/kings they played for were generally jealous of te service being provided to them, and did not look kindly upon freebies. Which was the original point I was responding to: music generally as a service of one person for another did not happen. Music only happened from religious or noble patronage, and only for those purposes, until pretty damn recently.

BTW, the fiddle had not been invented by the time Nero was emperor. So he didn't fiddle. And if one is to argue that the classically educated did know how to play, you'd be right, but two points remain. One, nearly all the music they studied was religious in nature. Two, the people who were classically educated were on the whole filthy frikkin rich or in a noble family and did not play for the common folk at all, which again was the point I was originally responding to.

Re:hmmm...

[skoaldipper]

when will the record companies understand that we want to listen to our music, at our own convenience.

We still have legal options - even moreso today (than before).

FTA (journal entry dated March 20, 2007):

So I headed to Rhino's online store, purchased the music, and downloaded the files.

He mentioned before that he spent 20k on vinyl and CDs already. He just wanted the Luna compilation. If you go to Rhino, you can purchase the Luna cover:
1. He had the option of purchasing the CD (as he professed to in the past), but
2. He purchased a cheaper WMA with this big DISCLAIMER directly below (once you checkout):

Important Note: WMA files are NOT compatible with your iPod.

He opted for 2, and ignored the disclaimer.

I thought you can purchase a CD and download them to your iPod. Am I mistaken? I fail to see that as justification for becoming a music pirate.

Re:hmmm...

[edmicman]

But I don't want to download that. I want to download Justin Timberlake.

Re:hmmm...

[QRDeNameland]

Eh, Stone Zeppelin was little more than a ripoff of Neanderthal blues rock-beaters of a previous era, like Muddy Glacial-Ice and Howlin' Mammoth.

Re:hmmm...

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

It MAKES Me FEEL very important to Talk in ALTERNATING Caps, even if they DON'T maKE SeNsE to reaD. Sometimes I ALSO like to randomly italiCIZE Words As Well.

Your badly-written and incoherent ramblings just don't amount to much of anything other than uneducated, music snobbery. "Oooh, damn that Edison for recording music on a medium! He ruined it for everyone!" Fucktard.

Re:hmmm...

[greg_barton]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[cptgrudge]

The earth is only 6000 years old, Bob.

Maybe he means 15000 dog years. Then it would fit.

Re:hmmm...

[rbochan]

...I want to download Justin Timberlake.

Then there's no hope for you.

Re:hmmm...

[Znork]

"For the vast majority of that fifteen thousand years"

Actually, the oldest instruments are around 40000 years old, contemporaries of cave art. And considering the ease with which one can make instruments out of commonly found materials, I'd find it astonishing if people didnt play around with making things like reed pipes or drums far earlier than that.

"Music for pleasure didn't become decently commonplace"

Betcha music for pleasure was decently commonplace for as long as people have been bored. Or consuming fermented beverages. In fact, I'll betcha it became decently commonplace the day after the first mother discovered singing would calm her baby.

As for the topics, it most likely was about the same things music has always been about. Whatever is on the mind of the performer or composer.

The prevalence of religious music in the western cultural heritage from the last several thousand years is easily ascribable to the church actually writing things down; I doubt they found lullabyes or rowdy drinking songs deserving of note. In fact, taking their usual method of operation into account, they probably did what they could to stamp out any non-religious music.

Re:hmmm...

[misleb]

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

Re:hmmm...

[ArieKremen]

I concur that Nero did not play the fiddle or violin, most likely he picked at his lyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyre.

Re:hmmm...

[danpsmith]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

The troubadours and trouvères were travelling musicians in 13th century Burgundy -- some 500 years before the "late Baroque." One of the most remarkable things about the 19th century was the popularity of music among the middle classes -- Beethoven's audience was the middle class, not the nobility and gentry. This is, I suppose, "late classical," but your concept of "commoner" is a bit off. You might want to review your history and your dates, if you're going to criticize people for historical accuracy.

What you're missing is that music, until the beginning of recording, was something almost everybody did. You sang; you played the piano (if you were well-educated and middle-class), you played other instruments. When you got together at parties, you'd either hire a few local musicians or take turns. Even up to the 1950s, well-educated people could all read music and sing or play the piano.

Recording turned music from an *activity* into a *product*.

Re:hmmm...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I hate to nitpick, but you're talking about SINGING. The grandparent is talking about MUSIC, and he is absolutely right. Most common people do not have access to INSTRUMENTS, the things which produce MUSIC.

Generally singing is considered one form of music, but even ignoring that there's this neat technique called "whistling" that has been popular for a little while now. Also the reed whistle, flute, horn and drum all predate even the earliest forms of writing. People were beating rhythms on hollow trees long before the concept of currency was invented.

Re:hmmm...

[C0rinthian]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[c6gunner]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[aardvarkjoe]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[xaxa]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[MadJo]

Never heard of drinking songs? Or folk music? Childrens songs?

I think that you'll find lots of examples of people singing with eachother... perhaps not a service perse, but still, it was done as a way to pass time and/or to pass on information. Well, actually you could say that it was a SERVICE.

Making music is practically as old as the oldest profession known to man.

Music wasn't limited to just the rich and famous, it belonged to everybody, EVEN to the commoners as you so put it.

And right now, if you sing Happy Birthday in a public place, you are breaking copyright laws... How's that for a service.
Let the name "pirates" be a 'geuzennaam'.

Re:hmmm...

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[qc_dk]

I would recommend you to look into the nordic tradition of folksong. Around the end of the 12th century it became popular among the ladies of the nobility to write down the songs sung among the common people. They are generally found in 4 categories
riddervise (knight songs) about courtly life and love
historiske (Historical) take a guess, yes about historical events and people
tryllevise (magical songs) about magic anf supernatural creatures
kæmpeviser (giant songs) about mythical events especially norse mythology

The two first are not religious in nature, the two last are more religous although not directly. They are more about the "trauma" of a society going from norse mythology to christianity.

I do not think you are right in your assertation that music was religous in nature until the baroque period. I think it is an integral part of human nature, just as religion is, but separate from it. What I think we are seeing is that it was not until the printing press that anyone but the religous establishment and their cheap and educated monk labour force (:-)) was able to actually pass on their music. Except for some areas where there was a strong oral tradition of not just telling stories but actually singing them, which is what the nordic folksongs are. We have just been very lucky in the nordic countries that the upper class suddenly became interested in pop music with secular content, so to speak.

This singing tradition still lives on in Denmark at least, I cannot speak for the other scandinavian countries. It is still a tradition that a guest at birthday parties or anniversaries who are close to the host of the party will write a song about the life and character of the couple or birthday boy. This tradition is not strong in my family, but i can still sing from memory five of the old folksongs above and probably 20 more old (100-300 years old, not 800) danish songs.

If you are interested, a danish band called "Sorten Muld" has released an album of reinterpretations of some of these old songs. Since the music to many of them has been lost, they have done the music in a sort of trip-hop style. Worth a listen in my opinion.
The text and a reasonable english translation can be found here:
http://www.noside.com/nsd6035note.html

They are generally very dark melancolic songs, which is true of most of the folksongs. The refrain is only repeated in all the verses in the first song, but they should be sung in all the verses. Note that the refrain does not always fall at the end of the verse.

Another interesting fact is that rap battling (as in hip hop culture) already existed in viking age. In the sagas there are examples of vikings "rapping" rythhmic rhymes insulting the opposing viking (and his momma) before a fight.

Re:hmmm...

[arminw]

....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.....

Actually, they are both right. It's just like is light particles or waves? It's both. To measure time you need a clock. There are two kinds of clocks we use. The one scientists use is run by the electronic forces that control the atoms and their particles. That's the one that governs your digital watch and radioactivity. The Bible uses the force that controls the motion of the earth, planets and galaxies, the force of gravity. Your grandfather's pendulum clock is timed by gravity.

The equations that govern the atomic forces ALL have a time value in them; that is they are contain certain "constants". There is no known law of physics that mandates that the actually remain constant. The equations that govern gravity, do NOT contain any constants. Gravity depends ONLY on mass and distance, nothing else.

The entire evolutionary belief system, masquerading as science, mandating billions of years, is based on the assumption (belief) that these constants truly are and always were constant as we measure them today. Even today, the atomic clock it drifting measurably slower against the gravity one. There is evidence that some of these so called constants may have changed by as much as a factor 300 million since the "big bang" event. There is an equivalence (nonlinear as most things in nature are) between the two time scales.

Re:hmmm...

[kindbud]

"I am attempting, Madame, to construct a MP3 player using stone knives and bearskins." - Spock, Music City on the Edge of Forever

Re:hmmm...

[iminplaya]

Yes he would pay for a performance of said data. A recording is not a performance, and should not be construed as such. It is an ad, like a billboard promoting a performance. And we should get paid for distributing them :-)

Re:hmmm...

[myc_lykaon]

Cubas' status as a world leader in medicine is actually debatable, not laughable. It is recognised in many places as a world leader in oncology with substantial numbers of people paying for treatment there, and those people are from Europe and South America.

People joke about the pricipal export of Lichtenstein being false teeth and the main export of Greece being culture, but Cuba does 'lend out' a phenomenal number of doctors to other countries.

I've visited and been very impressed at the serious level of effort they put into education and medicine.

Yes, they can't compete on level terms with the West and the phenomenal amout of cash we can put into solving a problem (viz. shotgun gene sequencing) but it very much reminds me of theoretical physics in Russia in the late 70's - frequently we were surprised by solutions to normally intractable problems they produced. We would say it would require many months of CPU time to simulate and their reply was 'we have no computers to do the simulation - we just invented new mathematics'. Cuban medicine and education appears to rely on inventiveness and necessity being the mother thereof.

Re:hmmm...

[chill]

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.

Re:hmmm...

[skeeterbug]

No, the earth is about 6500 years old. It says so right in the Bible, so it must be true.

uh, no, it doesn't.

the bible doesn't state how old the earth is.

the problem with most people is that 1. they input into text what isn't there and 2. they tend to listen to what everyone else in their group believes, regardless of the data that contradicts their view.

gen 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

yes, in the beginning, god created the universe. then, at some undisclosed point in time after that event, god took a formless and void earth and did some more creating. you and others ASSUME verse 2 occurred instantaneously after the event described in verse 1, but that doesn't have to be the case.

"in the beginning, i was born. now it came to pass that i had a college final exam."

is my exam necessarily the instant after i was born? would you assume it IN CONTEXT? of course not. yet that is EXACTLY what you do with genesis verses 1 and 2.

the bible speaks of original creation being perfect and beautiful and not "without form and void." the "without form and void" state could have occurred billions of years after the event described in verse 1.

the bible is 100% consistent with an earth billions of years old.

btw, reading into scripture what isn't there and valuing the traditions of men are EXACTLY why the false belief in an eternal hell exists (leveraged by selfish people in order to ultimately control people to suit their own ends - knowingly or not). a parable about regretting a lack of kindness after a resurrection from the dead has been twisted and distorted to mean something that was never intended and blatantly contradicts on topic scriptures.

yeah, people engulfed in flames are going to ask for a drop of water to cure dry mouth. that flame sure must've been hot to make dry mouth the rich man's #1 physical concern! -lol-

the wages of sin is death (ro 6:23) and the dead know nothing (ec 9:5).

look it up yourself. not many people teach these basic truths, instead, they teach death is life and love is torture and the masses eat it up like cherry pie on the weekend.

apparently, they do not know god is love (1jo4:16) and love does NO HARM TO ITS NEIGHBOR (ro 13:10). an eternal torture chamber for billions of people IS NOT LOVE AND CONTRADICTS THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE BIBLE*, yet almost every "christian" organization teaches it and nobody speaks out against it. the irony is that a god of love is consistent with the bible and inconsistent with the traditions of men (like plato's inferno hellfire), yet, "christians" tend to latch onto the traditions.

the facts that death is the wages paid to sinners (actually earned by sinners - failing to care for others EQUAL to oneself) and the death means one knows nothing are both are concise and on point teaching in the bible. most modern day christians REJECT these simple teachings so they can hold on to their traditions.

and, no, death != eternal life. read ro 6:23 - death is CONTRASTED to eternal life. death is exactly what ec 9:5 says it is... a state of knowing nothing, like before you were born.

read ezekiel 37 to see a time pictured when the great masses (in his case the whole house of israel) are resurrected to life from their state of knowing nothing (death!) and learn of god ways - well after this first life has passed away.

you won't find many modern day "christian" churches teaching this truth, either. yet, there it is for someone to see if they put aside their biases and believe what is written.

* yes, god did some physically harsh things to people, but remember that his actions were taken against clay, as it were. he ended a pretty miserable existence and will resurrect those people (see ez 37 for an example) to a much brighte

Correction

[Daishiman]

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.

Re:Correction

[spyrochaete]

Brilliantly stated!

It's a sad thing to admit, but I'm officially afraid of music now. Afraid and angry. I'm afraid of rootkits, embedded media player software that auto-installs, and CDs that will not play on computers. And I'm right pissed off about this because, while I am indeed a music pirate, I have an enormous collection of legitimately purchased music.

Now I refuse to buy music. It is no longer an option. I hate the music industry and I refuse to support even my favourite artists for subjecting their fans to such hazards. I listen to music to accentuate whatever it is I'm doing, and I refuse to change my lifestyle to suit music.

I'm done with buying music. Maybe forever. It all depends on the music industry. I want hassle-free music. I don't care what medium it comes on as long as I can transfer it to whatever media suit what I'm doing that day. I refuse to repurchase albums on other formats. I'm done buying widgets. Music is not something that fits in your hand. Sell me music or begone.

P.s., when I hear audacious BS like the recording industry suing a restaurant for playing music in the dining room my sympathy for their pleas disappears. To empathise with an industry that cannot be satisfied is futile.

Re:Correction

[rdforsyth]

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 :)

Re:Correction

[dthulson]

Have you considered just avoiding music from RIAA labels? There are plenty of independent labels out there. I have found the RIAA Radar to be very helpful.

What's a Pirate in This Context

[Mateo_LeFou]

If (as the "content industry" would like us to believe) we do not ever actually "own" our music, but "license" it, then there can't be any such thing as a Music Pirte. It's more like Unlicensed Music Listener. Like an unlicensed driver. Your thoughts?

Re:What's a Pirate in This Context

[heinousjay]

I think that's yet another stupid analogy.

Sorry for being flamish, but you asked and I answered honestly.

Re:What's a Pirate in This Context

[nine-times]

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.

Re:What's a Pirate in This Context

[Phanatic1a]

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.


Actually, they have taken a stance:

Sony musicians including Cheap Trick and the Allman Brothers are suing the record label for screwing them out of their royalties on sales of music on iTunes and other digital music services.
At issue is whether the music sold through these services is a "license" or a "sale." Sony pays less to its artists for sales than for licensing (Sony artists reportedly earn $0.045 for each $0.99 song sold on iTunes). Naturally, Sony claims that the songs sold on iTunes are sales and not licensing deals.

Assuming the mentioned case got as far as a court, Sony's claimed that in court. I'm pretty sure they're estopped from later claiming that what's transpiring is a license sale.

Re:What's a Pirate in This Context

[MobyDisk]

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

Re:What's a Pirate in This Context

[nine-times]

But that's exactly what I mean by "they want to have their cake and eat it too." If you want to say they've taken a stance, then the problem is that they've taken both stances, and hop back-and-forth depending on which will serve them better. Ok, so maybe they made a legal claim with legal ramifications, but that doesn't prevent Sony from trying to hold customers to "license agreements", but only that it might not stand up in court if the customer has a good lawyer. It (according to this article) doesn't keep salespeople from telling customers that it's a license agreement. It doesn't keep agents of the various record labels from making public statements about "licenses".

Piracy = Freedom

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

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.

Re:Piracy = Freedom

[illeism]

Piracy allows me to have questionable taste in music ;)

Re:Piracy = Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

[piracy] 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.

"Dude, is that an ABBA directory I see on your filesystem?"

"Uh, no, uh, that's, um... where I hide my pr0n"

"Cool."

ROFL

[Grashnak]

Well" she responded, "You didn't actually purchase the files, you really purchased a license to listen to the music, and the license is very specific about how they can be played or listened to." Now I was baffled. "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.

Re:ROFL

[voice_of_all_reason]

Question: If the liscencee pisses off the record company enough (vocal critic, successful lawsuits), can they void the liscences for any 'ol reason? Would be interesting if they attempted to tell large groups (political parties) they they were suddenly unlawfully in possession of copyrighted material and must immediately destroy it.

Re:ROFL

[drinkypoo]

Question: If the liscencee pisses off the record company enough (vocal critic, successful lawsuits), can they void the liscences for any 'ol reason?

Did you sign a licensing agreement when you purchased the music? No? Then there is no license, and your use of the material is governed only by appropriate laws involving intellectual property, copyright, and first sale. Period.

Purchasing a License?

[Otis2222222]

"Well" she responded, "You didn't actually purchase the files, you really purchased a license to listen to the music, and the license is very specific about how they can be played or listened to." Now I was baffled. "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"

Wow. This succinctly sums up everything that's wrong with the online music business, in my opinion. If I am going to pay 99 cents a track, the product I buy needs to be as equivalent as possible to what you get when you buy a physical product from the music store. For that matter one of my main objections to online music stores is the fact that you cannot download lossless-encoded songs (let alone DRM-free).

An audiobook lover moves to piracy.

[Mr. Flibble]

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.

Re:An audiobook lover moves to piracy.

[Rob T Firefly]

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.

This is where it gets even more interesting. If as they say you are only buying a license to listen to the tracks on a CD, are you still guilty of pirating even though by their definition you're allowed to have those tracks? What's the real legal difference between obtaining MP3s from the CDs yourself, or getting them from others who have already done that job?

Re:An audiobook lover moves to piracy.

[MattyCobb]

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.

Re:An audiobook lover moves to piracy.

[freeweed]

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.

Renter's contents insurance has been available for decades.

You're free to not purchase it (hey, many renters don't own much), but don't make out like you couldn't have had insurance :)

Otherwise I agree with your point completely. It's a good question, and has actually come up in insurance claims similar to yours.

Its sad really

[mulvane]

I have a collection starting on vinyl I inherited. I have many many old vinyls, and I have cassettes and cd's of many of these as well. To think, I have media pre-dating all this non-sense about RIAA, and who owns what. If I take a digital rip of a Elvis song now, I supposedly owe the RIAA money for it. Even though I realistically own multiple copies on media of various types. It seems to me especially on older classics that I should have a right to do with the music as I wish now. Is there a grandfather clause for such old media? Can I legally just acquire a new digital format for free now if I wished as to archive and preserve my collection?

Been there, done that

[John3]

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.

Re:Been there, done that

[stratjakt]

i have felt the same problem, it's worse for video.. Apple TV and iPod Video vs XBox 360 vs Tivo.. I really wanted to start setting up a digital library, but need 3 or 4 copies of each to play back on various devices.

The blame isnt the RIAA/MPAA or industries, the blame is on Apple, MSFT and Tivo.

Nobody forced DRM on any of those devices but the makers of those devices. If a 20 dollar dvd player can play DivX with no problems, there's no reason the others can't - other than companies wanting to set up their own private distribution mechanisms.

Jobs showboating about "I really wish we could ditch DRM" was pure bullcrap. It was his choice to use it. Plenty of content owners would do away with it today if it meant reaching a wider audience.

Re:Been there, done that

[drinkypoo]

The blame isnt the RIAA/MPAA or industries, the blame is on Apple, MSFT and Tivo. Nobody forced DRM on any of those devices but the makers of those devices. If a 20 dollar dvd player can play DivX with no problems, there's no reason the others can't - other than companies wanting to set up their own private distribution mechanisms.

What a stunningly ignorant sequence of statements!

Let me see if I can shed a little light.

Tivo chose DRM. They chose it because they felt they would be sued into oblivion if they did not. You may have a point here, although I believe that they made the correct decision - as in, they wouldn't have lasted a month if they didn't go the DRM route.

Microsoft and Apple both had to implement DRM if they wanted to be able to sell music. Microsoft had to implement DRM if they wanted to make Windows Media the most popular format around, even before they were selling music. The labels simply would not have permitted them to sell digital downloads without DRM. So yes, they very much were forced to use DRM - it was either that, or not compete in the industry at all. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to make money. So yes, they had to use DRM.

A 20 dollar DVD player can play DivX with no problems. That's correct. But the issue here isn't playing non-encrypted content. The issue is that the content creators want protection. This is why they're releasing media which is encrypted. Sure, you can make a player that plays unencrypted media. It's not useful for playing mass-media content; virtually no DVD releases are unencrypted, although I have seen one example. Try selling a DVD player that doesn't support CSS and let me know how far you get!

Jobs showboating about "I really wish we could ditch DRM" was pure bullcrap. It was his choice to use it.

Yes, it was his choice to use DRM and make money, or refuse to use DRM, and be lynched by the shareholders. What a choice!

Money is the root of all of this evil, but next in line is the MAFIAA.

Sand on a beach

[Ilex]

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.

Not pushed or forced... chose

[Red Flayer]

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.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose

[King_TJ]

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.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose

[Khaed]

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.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose

[nbannerman]

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.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose

[nine-times]

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.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose

[mungtor]

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)

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose

[MeNeXT]

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.

An etymological question

[Kadin2048]

Has anyone ever traced the origins of the term "pirate" with regard to un-licensed informational products?

It just seems like a bizarre word to pick out of the entire English language to describe that activity. I can't imagine that it was chosen by anyone who didn't have a definite axe to grind against "unauthorized copying," since it's such a loaded term.

I wonder if its origins have ever been really well researched, because it's probably too late now to ever change it. I suspect that the generation of young people growing up now are going to, on hearing the word 'pirate,' think first of a hot copy of Photoshop, and only second of a smelly guy with a knife clutched in his teeth. So there's no getting rid of it now.

Re:An etymological question

[grub]

Back the early 80's there was an infamous BBS named "Pirate Harbor". The misuse of the term wasn't new then.

Re:An etymological question

[dylan_-]

It's pretty old. In its entry for pirate (in this sense) OED has:

1603 T. DEKKER Wonderfull Yeare sig. A4, Banish these Word-pirates (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme.] 1668 J. HANCOCK Brooks' String of Pearls (Notice at end), Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies. 1703 D. DEFOE True-born Englishman in True Collect. I. Explan. Pref. sig. B3v, Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates.

Re:An etymological question

[shotgunsaint]

I suspect that the generation of young people growing up now are going to, on hearing the word 'pirate,' think first of a hot copy of Photoshop, and only second of a smelly guy with a knife clutched in his teeth. Who says we can't be both???

Re:An etymological question

[Athenais]

"So, in response to your query about the likelihood of changing the definition, my question is why you think it should be changed."

I don't really agree with your example; bark (tree) and bark (dog) are true homophones and not related to each other, but pirate (maritime crime) and pirate (small scale, questionably-legal copyright violation) is pretty plainly the result of someone trying to make a comparison between the common (and widely-tolerated) activity of downloading a few songs for personal enjoyment and robbing and murdering on the high seas. Referring to that as "music piracy" is sort of like calling jaywalking "right-of-way murder" or lying "fact abortion"--not a homophone, but a loaded term and implicit comparison.

Re:An etymological question

[bcmm]

Almost certainly via "pirate radio stations". These were ships which would broadcast FM radio from just outside a country's territorial waters, so that they could be heard on land. They'd play music without paying any royalties, play records which were banned from the radio or not released to radio stations, etc., and were just about legal because no one had the power to arrest people in international waters for something as trivial as copyright violation.

So you can see how "piracy" got linked to "copyright infringement" - via actual seagoing music pirates. Surprised no one else pointed it out.

Forget RIAA

[dmm79]

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.

That sound that you hear faintly in the background

[zappepcs]

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.

What goes around and around comes around and ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

"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".)

Respectfully disagree

[aztec rain god]

I'd say before bringing up religion, that most music around the world in the past has either been about getting laid or not getting laid, just like nowadays.

wasted time

[llZENll]

"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.

Not a license to listen

[edraven]

"You don't understand," I said, "These files were not copied or pirated, I actually purchased them."

"Well" she responded, "You didn't actually purchase the files, you really purchased a license to listen to the music, and the license is very specific about how they can be played or listened to."

Now I was baffled. "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"

This seems to be a common misunderstanding brought about by, I think, the inherently confusing nature of, let's face it, archaic copyright law in a modern context. A license grants the licensee the ability to legally do something from which normally they are legally prohibited. There are no laws that prohibit anyone from listening to music. What we have are laws that prohibit anyone apart from the author of any kind of creative work from (among other things) making a copy of that work. If you're not the author and you want to make a copy of a creative work then (with a few exceptions provided in copyright law) you need a license, because otherwise it is illegal for you to do so. When you purchase music online, you are buying a digital copy from an entity that is entitled by license to produce that copy. You are not buying a license to anything, and you don't inherit the rights which that license grants. Your buddies have just as much legal right to listen to the song you downloaded as you do, and just as little legal right to make a copy of it. That's how it works.

Re:Not a license to listen

[edraven]

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.

Lack of availability did it for me...

[haplo21112]

...The tale is such. Once upon a time I heard a song on the radio. It was a good song, I liked it, it was a summer song, it disappeared after that summer, it was by a one hit wonder, and being "poor" trying to find a job, and then "poor" and "busy" because the job sucked required huge hours and didn't pay well, I never got around to finding out more about the song, or where it came from, or for that matter since it never seemed to get announced by the DJ's on the radio who it was even by.

Well as I said it was a good song catchy, and it got stuck in my head "FOR YEARS" literally. And for a long time I just couldn't figure out how to find or get this song. Then came the magic of the internet and search engines. I could remember a couple lines of the song and from time to time I'd plug the lines I could remember into Google and Yahoo, etc...well a little at a time I started finding the song's information at forst I got a title, but no singer or band, then eventually I got the singer, however it wasn't attributed to any album, and as I said...ONE HIT wonder.

Then the Magic Day, I found out this song only ever appeared on the sound track to a particular movie, from that summer I remembered it from...great go find the sound track. Umm...only ever produced on cassette tape, likelyhood of finding a tape copy of a silly summer movie soundtrack...LOW...VERY LOW...but OK, I'll give it a shot...the search begins.

I checked every obscure/rare music reseller I could think of, and more that people turned me on to...NO LUCK...but you guessed that.

So then along comes various P2P networks, and sites, etc...and yes I looked in iTunes, not there....Then, by pure luck one day on a bittoreent site I remember to try plugging in the song, and there it is...Downloaded!

Well said, save for one typo:

[A_Non_Moose]

FTA

the best they can do is tell me to wander the streets of Seattle looking for different internet providers who might allow me to download the music that I have already paid for, music that I have spent the better part of three house trying to listen to, and which is still unusable?

I'm sure someone not so damn tired either auto translated (like loose/lose which this gent did (huzzah!)) or
figured it out quickly.

I did not.

Thought 1: three house? Three houses? Why go to three houses? Different internet connections?

Thought 2: Tree house? He has a tree house? WTF...makes no sense. Tree house are fun, tho.

Thought 3: Time? Three hours? Ah, makes sense now. Odd. Funny, but odd.

Thought 4: HEY, I'll be damned, the typed lose instead of loose! Wow, house/hours typo forgiven!

Thought 5: I need a nap.

You could always buy a USB Turntable/Tape Deck

[TAZ6416]

and do it youself.

http://www.ion-audio.com/

http://www.plusdeck.com/

Cheers,

Jonathan

Economic Warfare and Defective Products

[coats]

Clearly, Rhino has attempted to sell him a defective product. He should force them to refund his money; if they refuse, he should exercise his legal rights for the credit card he used to pay for the music: he has the legal right to refuse payment for the defective product, and get his credit card refunded the amount of the purchase.

It will cost Rhino far more to deal with the credit card company's fees for his refusing payment than he paid originally for the music.

First Experience with DRM

[brownj_685]

My first Experience with DRM was many years ago. I bought 4 books from a web site that sold them as protected acrobat files. Which is great for me to read them. However since then I have changed my computer and the files can no longer be opened, becasue they where licenced to my old computer. I can not redownload the licence for my new computer, because the company is now out of business. So the books I bought, are no longer usable, even though I have purchased the rights to be able to view them on my computer. If they had been significantly cheaper than the paper versions, I would just ignore it, and move on. However, they where not, and becasue of the experience I pretty much avoid all DRM protected content. Think about the response you would have, if apple closed tomorrow, and took everything with it, so that all that music on your ipod is good until your ipod dies and then it is all gone.

Re:Urestricted records.

[compro01]

this anaolgy is so invalid that it borders on trolling.

CD and a record are fundamentally incompataible due to the way they work.

an iTunes-downloaded AAC file and a non-iPod AAC-compatile music player are not fundamentally incompatable. they're supposed to work together, but this CRAP prevents that.

Only one of many problems

[bym051d]

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.

Re:Only one of many problems

[Grishnakh]

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".

Right and Wrong...

[simpl3x]

The great thing about lots of the past music has been the tie to visual arts, both graphic design and visual experiences. The problem with a lot of the digital music now is the loss of these cues and links. As a "collector" of music, parts of this I miss. Having the whole lot that took a dozen boxes to move (ultimately to the resale shop) on my laptop, even at 128 AAC is really appealing. It was very hard to finally make the irreversible decision to get rid of it all.

Now I have music in something where alphabetically it is really easy to find. Well, except for all of that Japanese noise! But, I don't have my visual cues, my stacks... My musical "thought" process is gone. Seeing the edge of a CD with a certain color made me think of playing it. Seeing something, made me dig for a cover. It is harder in lots of ways to find the music in intuitive ways.

He isn't simply after the memorabilia, he's after the memory. It's that subtle difference between work and working. A task is easy to break down, and code around perhaps. But, making meaningful software and work methods is a whole lot more difficult.

Happy Music Customer

[DrRobert]

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.

Re:That sound that you hear faintly in the backgro

[FunWithKnives]

I completely disagree with you.

It will be massively enjoyable to watch.

You know what really sucks?...

[Atilla]

...that artists make JACK SHIT on record sales?

We're talking less than 1% profit! What kind of crap is that? The label makes the most money, even though all they did was broker an arrangement between the artist, a studio, a media press, and a marketing outfit. They're a THIRD PARTY and they make the lion share of the profit, and then they have the balls to sue everyone under the sun because they downloaded an MP3.

Back in the day, Steve Albini (Big Black/Shellac fame) composed a fairly accurate breakdown of who makes the most money on record sales, and the figures are really sad.

Here's a link for your reading pleasure..

If you're lazy, to summarize: You can make more money flipping burgers than selling CDs of your music via a record label.

Looking at the numbers, I would rather send a $10 check to the artist and download the MP3 than pay some suit for his new ferrari.

Recently Garth Brooks made a deal with Walmart where all his new releases would be sold via the Walmart chain, with something close to 50%-50% profit sharing. I think as we get more and more artists to follow suit and tell recording labels to fuck off, RIAA and its army of racketeering criminals will pretty much fizzle out of existence.

Artists: I will GLADLY pay you for downloadable music (DRM-free, of course) as long as YOU are getting more than chump change off every sale. I will GLADLY pay you for cover art and promo media if YOU make money on it. Of course, the offer doesn't stand if your music SUCKS.

Which brings me to another point -- majority of the music that RIAA is trying so hard to protect SUCKS. The top 40 is a mockery of what music should be and nothing but a SHITTY rehash of somebody else's past work.

ok, I'm done.

-v

angels

[openright]

angels have been singing from the top of pins for much longer.

The FSM enjoys to be worshiped and enjoys choirs for some reason. I'm not exactly sure why the angels didn't work out. We don't have the "Angel Bible", so we don't really know when FSM decided to create angels/devils.

Re:MAC and Microsoft?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Is interesting anyways, how people is not complaining about Apple iTunes not supporting wma.

Apple does not support WMA because as soon as they do, MS has won the war to be gatekeeper of music. WMA is proprietary and only companies that pay MS can encode them or play them in hardware or software. MS will literally be able to charge a toll on all music and be able to shut out anyone they want. Would you like to switch to Linux, oops, no music for you. Would you like to buy a game console, oops Sony's PS4 and Nintendo's Wii2 can't play all the music you have. Apple saw it coming and jumped into the market to stop the Mac computer from being one of those devices locked out of music in the next few years. They did so by creating a competing solution with fewer restrictions they got the RIAA to buy into.

The conclusion is, once again, that both Microsoft and Apple want to win a war of digital music formats...

I disagree. Apple does not want to win the DRM-music war. They want to stop MS from winning. Apple makes basically nothing on music. They run their store at break even as a way to promote their hardware and stop MS. They have publicly endorsed the removal of all DRM in an attempt to pressure the RIAA to go for it or the government to force them. Apple uses an open industry standard format (AAC is mpeg 4 audio codec, mp4) with DRM added on. Get rid of the DRM and it is cheaper for Apple to deal with and easier for customers who Apple wants to buy music so they are more likely to buy iPods.

I'm opposed to DRM in general and closed DRM in particular, but from my point of view, Apple saved all our butts by jumping in when they did and blocking MS. That is why I don't complain about them specifically, although I do complain about MS's illegal leveraging of their monopoly to push DRM and about the RIAA who is also pushing it.

Rhino

[Emperor Cezar]

So I went to this Rhino store and checked out the help section. I wanted to know if everything had DRM. In there I found this:

What is Digital Rights Management (DRM)?

The DRM helps protect the file from illegal copying. However, as with any 'lock', hackers may break it. Those who knowingly tamper with DRM are acting illegally. They may even wear masks and possess secret identities. We discourage any attempt to defeat the copyright protection.

How to Turn A Music Lover to Piracy

[Digital Vomit]

How to Turn A Music Lover to Piracy

Easy: tell him how the music industry works.

Yeah, right. Courtney Love knows self serving.

[twitter]

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.

Are you implying that artists somehow benefit from music sales? I was under the impression that platinum performing artists made next to nothing from those sales but were forced to tour perpetually to promote them.

Yes, hundreds of millions of people are willing to pay for music. The greedy pigs who own the entire history of recorded music, unfortunately are so busy both artists and fans that no one is getting what they deserve.

The vast majority of music is still acquired on CDs, but history is all they will provide in the future. Everyone but the majors are sick of the majors. New music is being produced, promoted and enjoyed without them. Online, they are just one of many providers. The future belongs to those who meet people's need for entertainment. Lawsuits, restrictions and bad deals are not fun for anyone.

Re:Yeah, right. Courtney Love knows self serving.

[aardvarkjoe]

Are you implying that artists somehow benefit from music sales?

They would if they would sell their own music, or found distributors that gave them favorable terms. (And don't try the crap about there being no such thing -- there is; you just don't get the marketing muscle that the big names have.) I feel no sympathy for the poor, downtrodden artists who sign away the rights to their music in hopes of becoming multimillionaires. They played the lottery, they lost.

In any case, I was responding to the statement "That's where the money is, anyway. not the Albums," which is obviously false. Many more people buy music than go to concerts, and are willing to pay for it. There's money in both.