Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Life needs more saving throws.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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."