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."

34 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


      For Fifteen THOUSAND Years

      The earth is only 6000 years old, Bob.

    5. Re:hmmm... by User+956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    6. Re:hmmm... by 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.'"
    7. 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.
    8. Re:hmmm... by edmicman · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

  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.
  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
  8. 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.

  9. 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)

  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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."