Slashdot Mirror
DRM-Free Music Spells Trouble?
digitaldame2 writes "Many opponents of DRM have been overjoyed at recent efforts to free media from its grip. But PC Mag Editor-in-Chief Lance Ulanoff believes the whole world has gone mad. His view is that our digital economy will collapse this way, and it could be followed by countless others. 'The music industry's moves have been terrified reactions to staunch the bleeding of millions of dollars in revenue down the drain. For maybe a year, music companies thought they had the situation under control, but then album sales tumbled. Retailers, musicians, and some music-industry execs thought DRM was the culprit, and they soon joined the chorus of consumers calling for its head. Now consumers are getting their wish, and the music industry will continue to crumble. Giving up control of content and giving it away free are not rational ideas in a market economy, yet everyone's cheering.'" Is the removal of restrictions from our media really that big a deal?
Pirates are still going to pirate with or without DRM, and without it at least normal users will have less of a headache getting music on their favourite MP3 Player.
I don't see what the big deal about removing DRM is, either way the music industry needs to revise their business model, and removing DRM is the first step.
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
Is the removal of restrictions from our media really that big a deal?
Yes. It just won't send the world spinning in the direction they claim.
They're not giving up control - they're accepting that they aren't giving up control.
the underlying assumption is that ppl will quit buying. Some will. Most will still buy. More likely, the albums will disappear. In addition, I am guessing that labels will have trouble. But the bands will still play and will probably do better. They can get their advertisement from on-line.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Back in the day my friends and I made more mixed tapes for each other than we bought. If one friend bought a new tape, within the next few days, all of their friends also had one. This was true until CD's came out, but then again, once burners were introduced it happened again. I've never really downloaded music illegally, almost all of my music was purchased from iTunes or is from my very old CD collection pre-internet. I simply don't buy physical media anymore. But lately my choice to not buy anything at all has been more about the quality of music than anything else. Musicians these days just suck.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Once, there were horses, and they were the only way to get around town. All the horse-maintainers, the shodders and such, were in business and there was a grand economy.
..
Then, some new technology came to the scene: the automobile. "Oh noes", the shodders cried, "our economy is going to be ruined.."
The moral of this story is: technology. It will force change. Either keep up with it, or remove yourself from the market. Music doesn't have to be paid for - not any more, and no longer will we have to worship the few and provide them economic sustenance, so that they are only able to do it, when the many can do it, themselves.
In short, grow up music-industry people. Your world is changing. All worlds change. Let the people decide what life will be, and quite crying just because you didn't see the writing on the wall.
Yes, this applies to all media/content related markets. The writing is on the wall. The only way to protect your media is to put it in hardware - books are a good example - that makes it pleasant for people to buy it from you. The world needs us all to go digital and stop raping the earth, just so the few can profit from the ignorance of the many. Let the horses back to the fields
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Honestly, if the sale of recorded music is no longer profitable, that's just the way it is and the presence or lack of DRM wouldn't have prevented that. It's just a natural consequence of peer-to-peer file sharing being available. Now, it's more likely that the sale of recorded music isn't as lucrative as it used to be, but even in a free market it's best to let naturally-declining markets decline rather than prop them up artificially (i.e. US Steel, GM)--the long term gains always outweigh the short term turbulence.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I had an MP3 once on my computer. My computer started to crash/reboot continuously and my dog started to howl. The dog howling caused me sleepness nights. My sleepy-ness caused me to have a car accident with a bus full of nuns. The surviving nuns sued me and the dead nuns are waiting for me in heaven with baseball bats. Because of the lawsuit, I lost my home, my computer, AND my dog... I'm living in the streets and I only go into public libraries to use the washrooms and post on slashdot. I am scared of MP3s. (but not frightened to death because then the nuns & bats will get me)
A brave new world: the music biz at the dawn of 2008
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/state-of-digital-music-2007.ars
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
Without DRM, digital music can eaily be played on almost any media player. You now have opened up media rather then just iPods, to generic MP3 players, Windows systems, Linux systems, OS X systems, FreeBSD systems, and more. That is something that hasn't happened yet is a standard non-patented format for storing music, OGG would be likely but with it not being native on most MP3 players and Windows (and OS X too?) and MP3 is patent restricted and therefore rarely playable (legally) on Linux, FreeBSD and other systems. MP3 players also suffer with the patent fee, they could be cheaper without it. All DRM does is make people not want to download "legal" media, the main pro of "piracy" was that you can download it in just about any format you wanted, for free and it would easily work with just about every device that you had while the "legal" ones would not. Digital music will never catch up to CDs if "piracy" is always the better option. I am not advocating suing anyone but seriously, when you iTunes downloads work with you iPod/iTunes and nothing else, the MP3 download from a tracker site is a better deal as it will work on that $25 MP3 player you got, your computer (any OS) along with your iPod and phone, ETC. It isn't just DRM that was killing digital music it was the lack of a standard format. In the CD age (before the Sony rootkits and the like) your CD would work in any computer with a CD drive, any CD player be it the $25 off brand one or your $2000 stereo system. When we get that, digital music will begin selling otherwise, who wants expensive media that works with 1 brand of products and nothing else.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
As a musician in a band about to have their album finished by the engineers and ready for pressing, should we pull that $1k from the pressing, and put it towards eMusic, iTunes and wherever else music is being sold online? Personally, I don't care for DRM'd tracks and don't purchase music online at all. The rest of my band members however, use and buy one iTunes w/out a second thought.
For the past 6 months of reading a barrage of articles painting the ultimate end of the CD and continued surge to online music, why should we NOT jump into the online music pool? DRM or not.........
The music industry in general needs to adapt to the changing technology, and DRM is and never was the answer in the digital world. With the extreme low cost of copying bits and bytes, the law of supplies and demands in ECON 101 tells us that the old business model in which the music industry used to operated by is no longer viable. Just like any other type of businesses, they necessarily change with the times.
I'll summarize it for you: No DRM = Giving music away for free = Armageddon
I do kind of feel bad for the *AA member companies. It would suck to realize that your industry was subject to a disruptive technology that was already well past the tipping point. Having said that, it's their problem and not mine. I've been buying DRM-free music for decades and have absolutely zero interest in giving up control of my possessions.
Did you hear that? Possessions. Not licensed content, not rentals or leases, but things I own. When I buy music, I own that copy no matter how much they wrongly insist otherwise. I will not pay extra to buy restrictions to prevent me from using my possessions they way I want to use them, even if that was is undesirable for its makers. As long as I'm staying within the constraints of the law and not giving copies of it to others, it's none of their business (even if they wish it was).
So sorry, *AA. You had the opportunity to do things differently, but you chose to fight me instead of making me your friend. Your actions have been so scummy that I truly don't care what happens to you now. Justice? Morals? Ethics? As you have long cast those aside, I just can't be bothered to care when people fail to use them with you. Goodbye and good luck. You won't be missed.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
No one has explained to me yet why we need a megalithic music industry and why it is bad that it is collapsing.
Worse yet, if you sign up for a subscription, you're saying that it's okay for the music service to wipe out your music collection if you cancel. Imagine walking into your living room as all your books disappear because you changed libraries, or your DVD collection disappears because you switched from Blockbuster to Netflix.
I cannot help but think he was thinking about the dangers of DRM when he wrote this.
Removing DRM won't cause the music companies to collapse any faster than they would with DRM, because motivated individuals will always find a way to break the secret codes.
The question is, will piracy eventually kill the music industry as we know it today? I think it probably will, because honestly, nobody wants to pay to listen to Brittney Spears, they just want to listen to it because MTV made it look cool.
The music companies are damned if they do and damned if they don't, in my opinion, because people are going to pirate anyway, with or without DRM. Even with the draconian powers the DMCA and like-minded laws give them, it's not feasible to sue every pirate, even if they can convince the FBI to go after the pirates for them.
Honestly, I feel kind of sorry for the big music companies. But only as sorry as I feel for the buggy-whip makers of old. It doesn't help their case that they brought Brittney Spears and such to the masses either. But my point is that a new paradigm always has winners and losers, and you can't expect the losers to feel good, especially when it's their whole livelihood they're losing out on. Of course, you can't just let them break your whole legal system in their death throes, so even though I feel sorry for them, I think the best thing for all of us would be just to shoot them and put them out of their and our misery.
It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
The issue was that one could pirate music very easily that just worked and was high quality.
DRM music was a hastle to buy, restricted how you could play it, was a pain to get on alternate computers/media, and was a predetermined quality. Not only that but you had to manage the license files and repurchase the media if it was ever corupted or lost.
Removing the DRM evens the playing field out. If the music is easy to purchase and has all the other benifits that pirated music has, it will work. People dont mind paying. You just have to offer the same product that consumers want.
If they offer a better service and experience than the pirates, they will get people to pay. The pirates would have to put more effort into service and quality. It will cost the pirates more, force them to become more visible and stable, and in the end they will be much easyer to convict and shut down.
As it stand the pirate have set the bar for what the consumer wants. The lables have to raise the bar with out charging too much.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
1) Select (hotly) debated topic.
...
2) Identify current trend or view.
3) Propose opposing view.
Profit
Like many other posters have already mentioned DRM by-and-large simply doesn't work. Which makes any post-epiphany antithesis, well, rhetoric. We aren't going to have another HDMI incident with our audio and people will get it from one market or another (if paying is too restrictive and cumbersome we've already seen the results).
But hey, he got on Slashdot.
Quack, quack.
Music companies are in the business of telling people what to buy. They used to be in the business of recording and distribution. Recording and distribution are not very hard to do these days. Piracy means that they don't get paid for telling people what to buy. However, buying from a record company with DRM is a serious disadvantage to piracy over and above the price. By getting rid of DRM it is easier for people to justify buying music. People will always pirate. Not having DRM means that the record companies are now not at a disadvantage compared to piracy though, except for the price. Before piracy had a better distribution model than non-drmed music (Physical CDs vs Downloads) and had a better price. Now it only has a better price.
Bottom line... I'd much much much rather buy songs without DRM.
People who aren't going to buy aren't going buy and will always find an excuse.
Notice now though how again the labels with provide "amazon" with DRM free tracks but only EMI will provide apple. Using there catalogs as muscle to try and make the online sale more even. Those labels are evil..
The moral of this story is: technology. It will force change. Either keep up with it, or remove yourself from the market. Music doesn't have to be paid for - not any more, and no longer will we have to worship the few and provide them economic sustenance, so that they are only able to do it, when the many can do it, themselves.
Are you talking about content generation or distribution? Even if the RIAA goes away, we would be paying artists directly for the music. Unless this really isn't about DRM, but about getting shit for free.
"I love how intelligent people think subscription-based music services are the way to go. All you can eat for $15 a month. Talk about devaluing your product. People can download enough songs to fill 100 albums and pay under $20. How does anyone make money this way?"
Yeah. I can't figure out who ANYONE could make MONEY charging people RECURRING fees for CONTENT.
I mean, who would pay good money a month for a stack of dead trees?
Whoops, did I switch "magazine" and "music" again?
How old is your daughter again? Oh yeah, failed to mention that. Let me guess, three tops. Hippie? Dude, you're stuck in the 80's, aren't you? Well, at least you didn't use the C word.
DON'T FEED THE TROLL!
Okay, enough making fun of the naysayer, on with the facts:
1. "Consumers" (I really HATE that word) are willing to consume that which is good. The "digital content" folks are in trouble because their content sucks. Rather than admit their faults, they prefer to point fingers. In one sense, the bonehead is correct, DRM-free won't stop the bleeding, but that's because the bandaid is in the wrong place. Radiohead is a good example, people are willing to pay money to support content they like. Duh!
2. DRM-free has value to Consumers because DRM restricts that which they previously enjoyed.
3. Audio quality isn't the issue, if higher quality is desired the demand will be there. Otherwise, non issue.
Anything is possible given time and money.
Nothing to see here. When the author either doesn't understand or deliberately obscures the fact that there's a difference between free (as in costs no $$) and DRM free, its time to stop reading. There isn't an educated thought throughout, and the author hasn't done a bit of research. It is disheartening that the chief editor of a successful magazine can get away with spewing such drivel. As an editor, he must not only keep his own pieces at such low quality, but also edit his journalists works to ensure similar (low) standards are met in their works. Sigh!
If the music industry crumbles it won't be because it did or did not have DRM, it will be because it failed to offer a product consumers wanted at a price they were willing to pay. No amount of DRM or hand-wringing will change the fact that for some consumers, that means competing with free. Nor will it change the fact that if they produce music that nobody wants, nobody will buy it (even for free). In short, the music industry must either change with the times or go to its grave. That's no different than for any other industry, notwithstanding the industry big-shots who seem to think that consumers owe it to them to keep them afloat.
Copyright in it's original form already does that: "gives us lots of free music". The only question is the timeframe and whether or not you are going to annoy your paying customers in the meantime.
Amen. And when that term is several human lifetimes, it is clearly benefiting only one entity: the corporations. The rest of you suckers don't get a look in.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Prior to the commercialisation of the recording industry (which began in the 1910s/20s but only really took off after WW2) the only way the common person understood music was in the context of someone, usually THEMSELF, playing it. On an instrument. That wasn't plugged into an amplifier.
And at the time, there were musicians, and some did very well (Salieri wasn't poor, nor was Handel) but even they had a tiny tiny fraction of the kind of wealth exhibited by the ruling classes at the time. Musicians were still, basically, hired hands. They might be rich hired hands, but not like what we know today. The important point is the context: you knew music as a performance, not as a recording.
Due to the exigencies of technology, music became a commodity, and in classic capitalist fashion, the material costs were reduced to a minimum - finally, they evapourated as data into the interweb thingie. So, now they're trying to put a meter on something that the interwebs have always had a complex and contradictory relationship: data itself. The record companies are not in the business of selling music. They sell CDs. If the CDs had recordings of dogs barking, or were flat out silent, it wouldn't matter to the record companies, as they (in theory) sell what people want.
What people want is music. What people want is something for nothing. What people want is to wish upon a star and get everything they ever dreamed of, and if they can't do that, then they want the music that takes them there....
The music biz started with printing sheet music in the 19th century. It will die trying to sell data. It was an interesting ride. But now the amusement park is closed. Time to go home and make your own music.
Give up on the star system. Make your own, and support the art made by your friends, your family and your neighbours. Give up on this hallucination of Commodity Culture. Learn to play an instrument, and learn to play it well. work with other musicians, and through your own competence and intelligence you will create the hope this world so desperately needs.
and, in the process, go piss on the grave of the music business.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
>the music industry will continue to crumble
You say that as if it's a bad thing!
The CURRENT music industry will crumble. As it should; It's built on a 100-year-old business model of scarcity and limited distribution which screws both the artists (lousy contracts, "breakage") and the customers (CDs costs pennies to manufacture but cost much more, 30-year-old titles selling for more than new releases, etc.) and frankly the industry just doesn't add any value. Its not efficient, it doesn't discover or develop substantial new talent, etc. The gig is up. The CURRENT industry is turning out bland pop stars and the public is finally tired of the mediocre "product", the lack of value, and are moving on.
However, there's a new music industry that is forming. It doesn't rely on brick stores and (so-called) talent scouts to "sign" and "develop" talent. You might have heard of it. It's called the Internet. The internet allows musicians to reach the public directly, at low cost, and high convenience. IOW, it provides value at a lower cost. The music cartels do not. Capitalism is working here -- it's weeding out inefficiencies. Cartels lose.
Some sort of music industry will exist simply because people enjoy being entertained with music and are willing to pay for that, however the current model is well past being feasable.
From TFA: "Giving up control of content and giving it away free "
Uh...who is giving away free music? Ok, iTunes has some free tracks every week and I am sure there are others but here is the point:
Removing DRM != Giving Away Music For Free.
More from TFA: "So now it's a good idea to give away music in the hope that people will think you're so cool that they'll pay anyway."
Sometimes that works. Again, not many people are doing that. The argument is against DRM.
From TFA: " Sure, we could copy some pages out of a book at the library's photocopy machine, and some people created mix tapes from their favorite albums, and others got in the habit of recording movies from TV to VHS. These were not rampant problems, and no one panicked."
Uh...actually, there was panic. From Wikipedia:
"In the early 1980s, the film companies in the USA fought to suppress the device in the consumer market, citing concerns about copyright violations. In the case Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the device was allowable for private use, thereby guaranteeing market acceptance. In the years following, the film companies found that videorecordings of their products had become a major income source. However, television networks found the widespread use of this device was threatening their advertising business model because viewers then have the ability to either fast forward through television commercials, or pause recording when they are broadcast." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCR
Again, TFA: "The music industry's moves have been terrified reactions to staunch the bleeding of millions of dollars in revenue down the drain." So? What caused the drop in revenue? Crappy product maybe? I dunno. Sounds to me like the industry is already crumbling and it has NOTHING to do with them "giving it away for free".
TFA: "For maybe a year, music companies thought they had the situation under control, but then album sales tumbled. Retailers, musicians, and some music-industry execs thought DRM was the culprit, and they soon joined the chorus of consumers calling for its head. " And what has been the result? We don't know yet. I think it is a good thing. I would rather pay a reasonable price for a single song than be forced to pay an outrageous price for an entire album. "Everyone" likes that. Why does he think iTunes has been such a hit?
Get a clue, Lance.
He projects the end of the music industry and blames it on DRM-free tracks. Sorry, the end of the music industry started well before DRM-Free music.
Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
They're looking in the wrong place. The lack of any decent new music to buy is why sales are tumbling. FFS, I heard some song my son said was a new release by some boy fag band and wasn't it good? He was well happy until I actually pointed out that The Who released Pinball Wizard two years before I was born and a lot of the music he's listening to is rehashed 80's stuff.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Back in the days when a copy of WordStar or Microsoft Multiplan cost hundreds of dollars and came on copy-protected floppy disks, Borland International came out with a line of software that was different. Turbo Pascal, Sidekick, and other products came on non-copy-protected disks and cost $50 or $100.
If you believe in the claims of the DRM advocates in our big media organizations, you probably figure that Borland must have lost money horribly. Actually, they didn't; their strategy of selling without copy protection at a fair price was very successful.
The lesson I take away from that is that most people, if you offer them a fair deal, will take the fair deal rather than steal from you. I don't remember anyone ever saying "Borland deserves to have this stuff ripped off."
If you offer me music without DRM at a fair price, I will pay the price and get the music legally. I think most music fans will do the same. (Especially if they believe that their money will mostly go to the band instead of to the record label.)
P.S. The flip side of the coin is that DRM doesn't actually work. There's this thing called the "Internet", see, and if anyone anywhere in the world manages to once break the DRM, then everyone who wants to download the DRM-free version can do so. Thus DRM just hurts the actual paying customers, who then might well feel entitled to steal the next product instead of buying it.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
"Giving up control of content and giving it away free are not rational ideas in a market economy"
There is a very big leap between removing DRM and giving it away free. When there was no Amazon Music Store, and no iTunes Plus there was piracy. Since the introduction of iTune Plus and Amazon's DRM MP3 store there has been piracy.
Since Radiohead sold their album as MP3s online for "whatever you want to pay" they have continued to sell CDs (Infact, In Rainbows has done very well in the US charts as a CD album).
DRM does nothing to halt piracy, the thought that it has any affect at all on piracy is quite ridiculous.
The bigger worry for the music industry is the quality of music being produced. If they continue to try and market music that no one wants, they are not going to sell it. DRM, no DRM, if people don't want to listen to the music, they wont buy it.
Actually the main reason there's been a shift to removing DRM is simply that the music labels realized they were losing control to Apple. With Apple's dominance in selling music on-line and their control of ipods, the use of DRM was a lock in to Apple's distribution network. The labels moved away from DRM so, ironically, they could better control the flow of their music (the same reason they presumably insisted on it in the first place).
The reality is that DRM or not, people who wanted to get music for free could get it and people who wanted to share their music could share it. So long as there existed a high quality non-DRM'd format (CD's) or some ability to remove decryption, then DRM was pointless.
I think there is some truth to your point though about on-line sales increasing. I know that I had been hesitant to buy a lot through iTunes for the risk that I'd not be able to play the music elsewhere (or just the hassle of having to license multiple computers with Apple). Now that I can get high quality DRM free tracks from iTunes and Amazon I am far more willing to buy music.
I don't see any negative effect because it's not like DRM was keeping the music off P2P networks in the first place.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
No, there's no question about that, it most certainly will.
The real question isn't whether there will be more illegal file sharing, it's whether there will be more legal purchases.
For a long, long time, I've asked a simple thought experiment. If you had your choice of having $500 million in sales with rampant piracy, or $1 billion in sales with twice as much piracy, which would you choose? The music industry has a history of choosing the lesser amount because of the risk of the increase in music piracy. I've contended all along that this is stupidity, that even if music piracy increases, it would be well worth it to increase their bottom line in legal music purchases. To date, they've been operating out of spite instead of common financial sense.
I hope, and I honestly believe, that as DRM-free music becomes the de facto standard in the marketplace, sales will increase as hardware manufacturers gear up to take advantage of it and people are able to listen to what they want, how they want, where they want. It's just a no-brainer to me. And I hope the MPAA is taking note, because the same principle will apply to television shows and movies also.
The question has never been about whether or not there will be piracy. The only way to prevent it is to close your company's doors and declare bankruptcy, never to earn another penny again. The only question is how willing the industry is to cut off its nose to spite its face, to forgo profits to stop something that will never be stopped.
THE Music Industry is a myth
And by that I mean The Myth is that the is one "music industry". Specifically, what I mean when I say "the music industry" is (clearly, obviously) NOT the same thing that THEY (RIAA, etc) of the world mean.
I would suggest that we (the sane and clear thinking intelligent people of the world) understand that there are TWO "Music Industries".
- The Industry of Making Music
- The Industry of Distributing Music
DRM is all about the control of the distribution of music. What we're seeing here is a failure of that control.So what if DRM fails? So what if Music Distribution fails? So what if The Music Distribution Industry (which, basically, in its current invocation is nothing more than a protectionist racket like the MAFIA used to run) fails?
Previously the mechanical complexities involved in the distribution of physical media meant there "was room" (in a business sense) for an entity to "make this happen smoothly" and make money in the process. Now that there's less and less physical distribution, and more electronic distribution, the previous "margin for profit" is rapidly shrinking (ie there's no room for someone to skip BILLIONS of dollars from consumers for no reason).
As living proof that any idiot can make predictions about The Music Industry
- Music Distribution will be SIGNIFICANTLY LESS about physical media and more about content
- Many artists will find this is an opportunity to be more direct with their customers, and thereby collect more of the profits themselves
- Other distributors will be needed, to help shuffle bits (iTunes, Last.FM, etc)
- There will be multiple distribution models (sell bits, rent bits, subscription for bits)
- There will be MUCH MORE of a market for "free stuff" that comes with what you bought (ie "value add")
- There will be MUCH MORE of a market for premium content (ie the ultimate collectors signed-by-the-artist, gold-plated, diamond-encrusted pack)
... because it's now a significant distinguisher, as more of the market is no-longer physical - ....
- Profit???
Basically I could ramble on for a few MEGABYTES, but the main point is this:- The Entire Industry That Revolves Around Music will be much broader, deeper, richer than ever before.
Even though "the current distribution and control models" are no longer valid, nor necessary, nor are they even WANTED anymore.We need not, we should not, mourn their demise. Like a recently deceased aged relative, we've had some good memories, but towards the end it's just been messy and embarrassing.
Hold a funeral, bury the body, enjoy the wake, celebrate the new generation.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
The writer of that article is an idiot.
Every single song is already on the P2P networks so how can this cause the collapse of anything?
No sig today...
I know many of you have pointed this out already, but here's my 2p:
The author confuses physical goods with digital goods. No problem, happens all the time. He introduces this concept though:
"So people who made wooden chairs could trade them for, say, rice, fresh fruits, or meat. In time, a monetary system was introduced to generate a larger economy." That's not how it went down. Actually, according to my conspiracy-minded imagination, money was introduced by a bunch of lazy slobs who wanted to own the whole world, by doing the minimum amount of work. They devised a system by which people would trade little beads, bits of paper, shells, whatever, as long as they controlled the supply of said fiat currency. Like the man said "He who controls the spice controls the universe".
Thanks, Lance, for perpetuating the corruption that is money. That's swell. Before, people made whatever and traded whatever. Sure, there were inefficiencies, but people did what they fail to do now: they told people what they had and what they needed. Nowadays, it's all about "How much can I get for it" or "What are you willing to pay me for". So much better, I admit. (BTW, I am a wannabe '60's hippie that Lance is talking about in the article, like you couldn't have guessed) Moving on.
"We access or play an instance of it, but ownership lies really with the creators or, if they signed the rights away, to the media conglomerate that sold the right to consume it--on a limited basis--to you."
Whoa! When did we agree to this? OK, just for the record, let it be known that unlike everything else ever created in the world that is portable, fungible, and transferable, media is different. You don't own it. You have the right to use it. OK, let me get this straight, Lance, so I don't misrepresent you or your media conglomerate sugar daddy.
If I were to purchase a physical paper copy of your magazine, just for fun, let's say...then I gave that copy of your magazine to someone else after I was done reading it, that would be copyright infringement, right? Bear with me Lance...I purchased the "right" to read your sacred text, the words that you received on high by the mighty fortress that is...Microsoft, Ziff-Davis? I forgot who your corporate masters were. Anyway, so I purchased this "right", naively thinking I had purchased a "product" instead. If I then give that holy writ away to someone else, thinking "Hey, geek-boy over there is going to get a kick out of this," have I not infringed upon your sacred copyright? Have I not transferred my right to view your copyrighted work, without your express written consent (and the written consent of ABC, and the National Football League)? Am I in trouble, Lance? Are the cops going to take me away? I want my mommy. Woe is me.
See, this is exactly why a common peasant, unwise in the ways of copyright law, would be tempted to "steal" music. The commoner understands the concept of "buying and selling stuff". We do not understand this concept of "limited transfer of rights". In fact, it appears that yon mega-media company is attempting to rip us off. Is that what's going on? Has this been going on for years? Are the money changers in the temple? Have they been kicked out by the messiah of P2P? Lance, are you actually defending the money-changers? Do you even know what you're up against?
Sharing resources like this always makes me think of the parable of the loaves and the fishes (no I am not a Christian, but I will not hesitate to use Christian literature against them). You see, The Original Hippie split loaves of bread and entire fish. Why he did not bring at least some of the fish back to life, to replenish the stocks in the lake/river/stream/whatever is beyond me. Perhaps his powers were weak, at the time. Anyway, everyone got enough to eat because Beardy basically did this matter transmutation thing with food.
This is essentially what we are doing now, with media. We copy one set of organiz
For those of us old enough to remember the early days of the personal computer market and, more specifically, the IBM PC market, we will remember that the same types of doom and gloom was said about the software industry. Lotus would die if it released 123 without DRM (ok, it was called copy protection back then) or that dBase or a host of other software vendors.
But there were some that realized that two things were going on:
1) Copy protection got in the way of legitimate paying customers so more and more complex methods were invented that did things like put bad data into directory structures on the hard drive to "mark" the machine as valid and other such trick, all of which ended up causing more problems and costing tons in R&D and support efforts.
2) Those people who would not pay for the software still were finding people who had the skills to work around the security measures and still had illegal copies. In fact, some that actually had paid for the software also got these illegal versions as they did not have this other problems.
Along the same time, some smaller vendors released software at the right price and without copy protection "features" and did very well. Slowly the other vendors also stopped doing copy protection and, well, the sky did not fall. They all prospered. Those that failed did not fail due to lack of copy protection or due to too much piracy.
I have seen this cycle actually a number of times. Each time the final analysis ends up showing that more is lost due to trying to "protect" the content than is ever gained by someone maybe paying for the product that might not have done so without the measures.
"the music industry will continue to crumble."
... what's the problem, then?
As a composer and musician, I ask: so
The "industry" (think once more about that word, and what it has meant to *music*) was an anomaly built by pimping pop to teenagers with enough money to buy vinyl. It consumed as many lives as it made dollars. The "star" system, the "underground economy", the proliferation of radio stations choosing what is "worthy"
Good riddance. Music never needed the cigars, the usury, the chains or the money. I look forward to new Woody Guthries running amok in the countryside, new Dylans popping up in depression coffeehouses. As for all the people who've made a very good living from the creativity of others: go sell Amway.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
Well, in the last 2 months I've bought more DRM free music (Thanks Amazon!) than I have DRM'd music in my life time. Why? Because DRM music has been a nightmare. I could never get it to play right on my MP3 player, I don't own an iPod (Well I did, but I returned it) so the few songs I bought on iTunes were essentially trapped on my PC. My mom in the past bought music via the DRM'd Walmart store, but had such hassles she never did again. Instead I've stuck to CD's. Nice simple, easy to copy. But with Amazon now offering up huge amounts of DRM free music I've been buying up out of print albums and guest spots some of my favorite artists have done.
As my brother, a musician, tells me, he doesn't make that much money off recordings anyway. Most of his income comes from performances. I can steal the f*cking CDs for all he cares as long as I come to the concerts.
Keep this all in mind when deciding who will be getting screwed by DRM-free music.
Have gnu, will travel.
I went ahead in time and grabbed a history book written in the year 5,000 AD. Here is what it had to say....
"... For 10,000 years musicians earned their money by playing in front of a live audience except for a short 80 year period in the 20th century. Before this period recording has not technically possible and after the period recordings had no commercial value because they could be universally disseminated at no cost...."
The "digital economy" is doomed to collapse unless they realize and accept that it's based on services, not products.
The music industry is going through changes analogous to the ones the publishing industry went through over time.
In the first era, publishing books was a laborious and time consuming process, and only one copy could be made easily. Books cost huge amounts of money, and were hand printed and illustrated. Then when the printing press was invented, it created a second era, which dramatically brought down the price of books due to mass production, and made it possible for countless people to read things they never would have been able to before. It also led to the rise of publishing empires who controlled what and who was published. If you could afford a printing press, you could publish what you wanted, but not many had the resources and wherewithal to become a major publishing machine. And lastly with the rise of the internet era, web sites and blogs, which are essentially free ways to publish and mass-distribute your work, it became possible for anyone to have their writing accessible to all, and to build a following, without the need for a publisher in the middle. Many blogs are now major writing outlets, and don't go through publishers they way they would have needed to in years gone by. Technology has created a whole new market and business model.
The record companies are in the same state the publishing companies were in during the rise of the third era; technology has made it possible to bypass them and they are running scared.
But you don't see blogs as a substitute for publishing books. People still buy books from book publishers. Yet blogs have become a huge global force just as important as books. Newspapers, being in between, have suffered and have been forced to become more like blogs. The difference between blogs and traditional printed media is that blogs are streams. The value people find in blogs is that they are a constant stream of creative content from the writer, i.e. a subscription. People see value in getting the latest thing from the writer, in a timely way, with predictability and quality. So what people see as the value of blogs is access to the talent on an ongoing basis, not an individual item of production. And there still is value in producing and buying books, because they are a different product meeting a different need.
So I see that the music distribution business will change in similar ways. It may become impossible to charge for individual songs, but people will pay for ongoing access to the talent. The musicians will be forced to actually be productive on an ongoing basis, and to create a stream of content, which has subscription value. They will no longer be able to build huge fortunes on a few moments of inspiration, and will have to work for their supper on a continuing basis. But in the end, those who have talent will be able to create that stream of value, though probably not on the scale that musicians get paid today.
And there will still be a market for high-production quality compilations of music, like CD compilations with good editorial judgment, and high-quality artwork and music. But along side them, as important or more so, there will be talent streams.
Things will be different, and talented musicians will be able to make a moderate amount of money, and the people who make fortunes today riding a few creative successes probably won't be able to do that. But is that such a bad thing?
Beethoven was a prime example -- in fact, the first -- of a composer who did not need aristocratic patronage. He paved the way for a self-sustaining business by publishing, selling subscription concerts, and acquiring commissions from wealthy patrons. He did not live or die by a single royal finger, though he did accept individual commissions from them.
Dog is my co-pilot.
He needs to get hit over the head with the internet Clue stick.
Now consumers are getting their wish, and the music industry will continue to crumble.
The sales/downloads of Guitar Hero tracks is making Activision rich. http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/21/guitar-hero-franchise-passes-the-1b-mark/
Notice that the top downloads do not include todays Pop or Urban Crap (oops) Rap artists.
The RIAA/Studio over priced music model will decline. CD sales suck, not because of the DRM (that sucks too), but because the product (Music) stinks. I want to buy Lordi's CD but can't find a US seller anywhere. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6VzdtmrP6Y
When can Lordi sell me their tracks though Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony? The future will be Music tracks from Band to Fan (Me).
Not the current model of Band, Expensive Studio, Distribution Conglomerate, Store to Fan tracks.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Seriously, books could probably exist without user restrictions because they're still too difficult to copy.
And ebooks don't come close to the readability, convenience, and utility of an actual book.
And if you think you're the only reader of books, how do you explain that every mall in American has at least one bookstore, and the internet is filled with book sellers (B&N, Amazon, Caimen, Powells... the list is endless).
I frankly see the TV Network most at risk since they seem to do their best at annoying viewers with endless commercials and taking 1/3 the screen space to remind you of the network name.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"Your idea of music 'authenticity' (i.e. bands who can play instruments well on stage) is confusing music and sport"
Real music is a living breathing thing. It's people next to other people creating something right in front of you.
I don't mean in a concert hall, either. I'm talking about how most of us musicians got started. Playing in the local bar for $75 for 5 guys for 4 hours. It's about emotion, it's about a moment in time. Music in that setting *moves* people. A person playing Mozart sonatas live is riveting. On a CD, it's... nice. Chicago style polkas make you get up and dance *even if you hate polkas*. A smaltzy singer on the radio... wow... in person, you *get* it.
Yeah, you can make interesting sounds with synth and a sequencer and a recorder, and it's good, and entertaining, but people who just listening to music on CD's or their iPod and missing 3/4's of what music is all about.
Get up and dance. Move around. Laugh and cry with other people, marvel at a group of guys creating right there in front of you.
If you think that's sport, then you've probably never played sports or made music.
Now I understand why my daughter's age group would prefer a DJ to a live band.
And that is in many respects cheap, because I didn't have to go to school. Your average photographer spends an obscene amount of money on gear, usually working around 60 hours a week, trying to make a living at it, and you're suggesting that you strip away the protection which allows these people to actually make a living at this. There's often times travel money involved and money spent making sure that the copyrights are being respected so that there's return on investment. Advertising, accounting, image management and careful study to keep ahead of the competition. It really isn't a glamorous field to be in, and definitely not posh.
It's all well and good to say that copyrights are evil, or that it's an entitlement, but ultimately it's the fans of the work that suffer when the work is no longer available, or it is available in limited quantities due to some hippies wanting to free the media.
The problem with copyright isn't that it exists, the problem is that it typically extends for too long. Allowing an artist to profit from his or her own work for life isn't an unreasonable proposition.
As another hippie loon, may I add that the people who don't believe in copyright aren't the fucking thieves here. The media corporations who keep paying off the politicians to extend the copyright period are the fucking thieves!
Look, if you buy something on time, you make monthly payments until the time period is up. Then the thing belongs to you and you don't have to pay any more for it. Copyright works the same way. You pay during the copyright period. After the period is up, you don't pay because the formerly copyrighted item goes into public domain. It's yours because you have finished paying for it. In the case of items in the public domain, it's not only yours, it's everyone's.
When you pay off someone to extend the copyright period right before an item goes into to the public domain, you are stealing the public domain. You are making people pay you for things that they already own. That's fucking theft, not sharing files. Sharing files is what you do to protect the public domain from the fucking thieves that are stealing it!
Each time that the global media corporations extend the copyright period, they are stealing the public domain.
They are the fucking thieves, not us!
By the way, there are no 12-year-olds on Slashdot.
Idol worship has always been a bad idea. It corrupts both the idols and the worshippers.
Big is dead, and that is a good thing.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
When I was a lad cassette radios were the latest music technology, along with "hi-fi" centres with built in cassette recorders.
The music industry was horrified that people could record their friends LPs onto cassettes instead of buying more LPs. They tried (and failed) to sue the manufactures for selling equipment that specifically designed to allow easy copyright infringement (LP->cassette or cassette->cassette) (OK, the quality went down a little, but most people did not care).
They blasted us with "Home Taping is Killing Music". I, and all my friends, taped and taped, off radio, off friends LPs, off library LPs and: guess what ? Home Taping did not Kill Music. There are *still* some artists making a fortune in the music industry, many are still struggling, Pink Floyd are *still* making money off their back catalogue. The sky has not fallen !!
Plainly put DRM encourages piracy. It will never stop somenone from copying music and distributing it on p2p networks. But it will make people turn to pirated content.
Oh, easy, Mr. Lance Ulanoff choose one of the following:
1:
- lower quality music
- works usually in one player, on one OS
- requires you to install crappy software, with bugs
- one day it might stop working alltogether
- if you change your os/pc/player - than bad luck
- you want to listen to it in your car - yeah right
- high priced
2:
- high quality (up to studio quality on some)
- lots of formats to choose from
- no additional software required
- works on any os/player
- free
- oh, right, the fat bastards selling No. 1 payed for laws which make it illegal.
I am sure you all will choose No. 1 so stupid *idols* and *stars* will keep having drug money and fat ceo's will keep getting richer for doing nothing.