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."

58 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


      For Fifteen THOUSAND Years

      The earth is only 6000 years old, Bob.

    6. Re:hmmm... by Elemenope · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    7. 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.
    8. Re:hmmm... by Elemenope · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    9. 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.'"
    10. Re:hmmm... by Elemenope · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    11. Re:hmmm... by skoaldipper · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
    12. Re:hmmm... by edmicman · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    13. 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.'"
    14. Re:hmmm... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    15. Re:hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    16. 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.
    17. Re:hmmm... by cptgrudge · · Score: 4, Funny

      The earth is only 6000 years old, Bob.

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

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    18. Re:hmmm... by rbochan · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...I want to download Justin Timberlake.

      Then there's no hope for you.

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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?
    22. Re:hmmm... by qc_dk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    23. Re:hmmm... by kindbud · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    24. Re:hmmm... by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Funny

      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 :-)

      --
      What?
    25. Re:hmmm... by myc_lykaon · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

    26. Re:hmmm... by skeeterbug · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

  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 spyrochaete · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Correction by dthulson · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  3. What's a Pirate in This Context by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. 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.

  4. 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.

    1. Re:Piracy = Freedom by illeism · · Score: 4, Funny

      Piracy allows me to have questionable taste in music ;)

      --
      Help test the /. effect at my min
    2. Re:Piracy = Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      [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."

  5. ROFL by Grashnak · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    --
    Life needs more saving throws.
    1. Re:ROFL by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Purchasing a License? by Otis2222222 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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).
  7. 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
    2. Re:An audiobook lover moves to piracy. by freeweed · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  8. Its sad really by mulvane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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 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.

    3. 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)

  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. Respectfully disagree by aztec+rain+god · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    Sig cannot be found.
  13. Not a license to listen by edraven · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.
  14. Re:An etymological question by dylan_- · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
  15. Re:Been there, done that by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. 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".

  17. Right and Wrong... by simpl3x · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  18. Re:That sound that you hear faintly in the backgro by FunWithKnives · · Score: 5, Funny

    I completely disagree with you.

    It will be massively enjoyable to watch.

    --
    "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
  19. Re:An etymological question by bcmm · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  20. Yeah, right. Courtney Love knows self serving. by twitter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.