Slashdot Mirror
EMI Says Online File Storage Is Illegal
WiglyWorm writes "MP3tunes CEO Michael Robertson sent out an email to all users of the online music backup and place-shifting service MP3tunes.com, asking them to help publicize EMI's ridiculous and ignorant lawsuit against the company. EMI believes that consumers aren't allowed to store their music files online, and that MP3tunes is violating copyright law by providing a backup service."
> As a record store owner, My business faces ruin.
Tough. The pervasive use of automotive vehicles has put a lot of blacksmiths out of business. But would the world really be a better place if we had stuck to using horse drawn carts?
Sadly, in some markets, he's probably correct. I can't speak for America, though I'd assume the Fair Use doctrine would apply, but in the UK I'm fairly certain that it's still, albeit perhaps only technically, illegal (sorry, I couldn't find a more authoritative source) to copy CDs for any purpose, whether for transfer to an iPod for practical purposes or simply as an archival backup.
I'd hazard a guess, insofar as I'd want to try and infer reason in the minds of music executives, that online storage is probably perceived as being equal to distribution via p2p. I hope that, some day, a music company might at least try to employ someone familiar with IT. Presumably it'd save them a little time and money.
Yes; exactly.
Man, you can't even trust the trolls on /. anymoe... this post is a dupe!
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 28 2005, @11:49AM
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
An oldie, but a goodie.
>>>"People aren't buying half as many CDs as they did just a year ago."
Well then, supplement your CDs with sales of MP3 singles. The singles market is going through the roof, and if you provided your customers with a place to buy and download MP3 singles, you'd probably be a popular stop for the teen and 20-something market.
ADJUST to the needs of your customers.
If they are demanding singles, don't hand them CDs.
Give them singles; give them what they want.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
Blacksmiths, buggy whip makers and all the other usual old time jobs that Slashdotters trot out each and every time they wish to denigrate a business case did not face competition from their own product being hawked with no requirement for any return on investment.
I submit that the most siginficant aspect of this story is that it demonstrates now the artificial market interference of the "anti-piracy" enforcers is already being used to arbitrarily restrict user freedoms in areas that are only incidentally related to the purpose of copyrights.
This kind of rippling ramification will become ever more common as the legacy duplication and distribution industries get ever more desperate in protecting their obsolote business model from technological progress.
I don't even understand how they can say this. If there isn't a copyright infringement going on here (I'd understand that), then what's the problem? By saying this, they're illegalizing the entire online music business? Some holding EMI's own music, like iTunes.
Or is this about some obscure difference between online storage and online storage?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Your analogy doesn't hold.
While I don't care if record stores go out of business, since it's clear that online downloads has won as the successor to the CD format, I do care about copyright. Online distribution without compensating the copyright holder will cause the arts to suffer. Yes, artists are getting ripped off by music companies, that will change as online downloads dramatically decreases the cost of distributing the work to the people. There are already companies that will list you on iTunes while leaving the copyright in your possession. The artists still get compensated in a way they find meaningful. Just because you don't like how they are treated doesn't mean you have the right to give their works away for free, thus removing all revenue they would generate for the work. An artist who finds a way to give their works away for free while still earning money on those works is making the choice, which is well within their rights, but it is NOT within your rights to make that choice for them.
Copyright serves a purpose, yes it's misused, yes the way works is sent out to the masses can be improved, but artists need to know they can earn a living worthy enough to create works. Yes, they can earn a great deal of money playing live shows, but do you honestly realize how hard it is on a person to tour? People have left bands that were earning them millions of dollars because they missed their wives! These are human beings, not some commodity to be used at your discretion.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Seems troll-feeders are still thriving. Seriously, have you never seen this one before?
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
The problem is run into in the nature of the service being offered. This isn't merely storage, they are distributing the works.
... no plurals involved.
:-( You really don't get it do you ?
... a URL with "mp3" in it does not automatically equate to "file sharing".
They are NOT distributing it !!!
Distribute - verb (used with object), -uted, -uting.
1. to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.
2. to disperse through a space or over an area; spread; scatter.
3. to promote, sell, and ship or deliver (an item or line of merchandise) to individual customers, esp. in a specified region or area.
4. to pass out or deliver (mail, newspapers, etc.) to intended recipients.
5. to divide into distinct phases: The process was distributed into three stages.
6. to divide into classes: These plants are distributed into 22 classes.
They are not dividing the file into pieces, nor sharing it amongst any other parties. They are merely serving it back to the original owner when requested. I would imagine that definitions 3 and 4 could apply, but ONLY in the context of the original owner
Your argument is like accusing a bank of "distributing" your money when you pay a cheque into the bank and then use an ATM at a different branch to withdraw the SAME money that BELONGS TO YOU !!!
The way it seems to run, this isn't a common carrier thing that is being run in good faith, like say any random hosting company, this is a company that is advertising that it will distribute copies of music that you bought from someone else to you on any device you want.
There's that word again
That changes the rules, they can't do that without a license, even if you have 5000 copies at home.
When I purchase a CD, fair use says I may make backup copies for my own personal use. It does not dictate that those backup copies MUST remain within my own home, otherwise anyone with a cassette tape in their car that they copied from a CD they own would also be "breaking the law" everytime the car left the driveway.
If I choose to put my copies in a bank, they remain my property, and the bank does not "distribute" them to ANY third party. Likewise if I choose to store my data in an online file storage repository, and said repository ONLY returns that data to me when I supply MY username and password, it is exactly the same thing.
Don't let your shortsightedness blind you to the reality
As a record store owner, My business faces ruin. CD sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as many CDs as they did just a year ago. Revenue is down and costs are up. My store has survived for years, but I now face the prospect of bankruptcy. Every day I ask myself why this is happening.
The product has become dangerous. We used to buy 12 inch LP's, cut tapes for the car, play them with slides, etc. They have gotten the word out that most of these activities are now a legal liability that can cost you thousands of dollars. My peak piracy days 30 years ago was my peak purchasing days. The average then for the population was 2 LP purchases / year per capita in the USA.
My kids have grown up with iPods and the like. The music prices haven't changed. They have 30 Gig players and you still charge dribble prices for content. If the petrolium industry sold gas like you sell music, we would be arriving with empty 16 gallon tanks and finding the stuff in pretty packages that will fit nicely in your shirt pocket. Alternative fuel is the order of the day just like alternative distribution. The players have changed. The product value has changed. Back catalog is sold at full retail. There is no exchange or upgrade path for worn media. Care to exchange some 8 track tapes and Compact Cassette tapes? I have the full license to play them, but you don't back the license to ensure I am able to enjoy it.
Why is no one buying CDs?
That one is simple. I'm supprised you had to ask, but in no paticular order...
1 The loudness war
2 High prices for little content
3 Competition for the entertainment dollar (pay TV, satelite radio, cell phones, computer games, MP3 players, and others that had no or little presense 30 years ago.)
4 Retaliation for the industry's nukes on student's finances.
5 DRM on CD's makes them incompatible and dangerous to use. I don't keep a list of safe to play CD's. The lack of the Philip's Compact Disc logo on the good bad and ugly makes shopping by the cover very difficult.
6 Free music online (not piracy)
7 Piracy (fueled by all of the above)
8 Restrictions on use... Can't leagaly do the Carson Williams light show legaly unless you buy one of the approved for use licenses from Lights-o-Rama or play it in public at a reception, etc. No weekend DJ'ing for me.
8 ?? did I miss anything?
In summary, the product is compressed, possibly won't be transferrable to the kids iPod, can't be used with a Power Point Slideshow for a wedding, can't be used for the reception dance, super expensive to keep a current library for the above, and is a very expensive legal liability if your kids post it. The product is expensive, may be defective with no recourse, and a legal liability.
"When the kids went to bed, my wife asked me, "Will we be able to keep the house, David?""
I used to work in the VCR and TV repair business. When 20 inch color TV's were $400 and VHS VCR's were $600, people would pay the rate for a couple hours it took to repair them. Now purchase prices are near what a repair used to cost. I kept my house, but found a new line of work. Your field isn't the only one hit by distribution channels providing a cheaper product.
As long as your supplier is stuck on dribbling out product and sitting on back catalog and fighting hard to keep the ASP high, the demand in going to be small. Get used to it.
If your supplier was smart, they could sell compilation CD's of high quality MP3's of back catalog. They would be iPod, Zen, Zune ready, high quality and affordable. I would pay good money for high quality collections of Chicago, Pink Floyd, Styx, Led Zepplin, etc. Toss the restrictions on use and sell collections of 50's, 60's, & 70's dance music with permission to DJ the stuff may sell a bunch more. Many DJ consoles now play MP3's instead of CD's. Make loading the MP3's on the device hard drive legal instead of a legal liability.
See any trend here. Piracy i
The truth shall set you free!
The world changes. The market's demand shifts. And you, and people like you, continue to blame the customer base for wanting the product how they want it.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
EMI wants to gain access to copies of files that users have on their MP3tunes accounts. Now, I'm assuming that you can't just go in and browse the list of files that a user has, otherwise they'd have shot themselves in the foot by arguing on privacy grounds.
So I'm assuming that EMI came along and said, "We want all the MP3s stored in user X's account." As it's unlikely that any user has an account filled 100% with EMI music, EMI would be given access to a significant amount of music from other labels, without the consent of the copyright holders. Which seems very hypocritical, even if it's legitimised by a court order.
Do. Not. Feed. The. Trolls.
C'mon, you're aren't new here. You must have seen this one copy 'n pasted on every MP3 story?
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
It's getting too expensive to find materials. We use only 100% hand-rubbed foreskin.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Do noooot feed the troooooollls! Sheesh, this troll is older than me. There: I did my best =P
---
As a table dance club owner, My business faces ruin. table dance sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as table dances as they did just a year ago. Revenue is down and costs are up. My club has survived for years, but I now face the prospect of bankruptcy. Every day I ask myself why this is happening.
I bought the club about 12 years ago. It was one of those clubs that play obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them. I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market. My table dance club specialized in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to. I don't play sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.
The business strategy worked. People flocked table dance club, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase table dances without profanity or violent lyrics. Over the years I expanded the business and took on more clean-cut and friendly employees. It took hard work and long hours but I had achieved my dream - owning a profitable business that I had built with my own hands, from the ground up. But now, this dream is turning into a nightmare.
Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer table dances. Why is no one buying table dances? Are people not interested in lust? Do people prefer to watch TV, see porn films, read erotic books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame. The statistics speak for themselves - one in three geek world wide is watches porn. On The Internet, you can find and download hundreds of dollars worth of porn in just minutes. It has the potential to destroy the table dance industry, from dancers, to Djs to table dance club owners my own. Before you point to the supposed "economic downturn", I'll note that the book store just across from my store is doing great business. Unlike porn, it's harder to copy books over The Internet.
A week ago, an unpleasant experience with pirates gave me an idea. In my store, I overheard a teenage patron talking to his friend.
"Dude, I'm going to put this table dance in the Internet right away."
"Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic], you'll get lots of respect."
I was fuming. So they were out to destroy the table dance industry from right under my nose? Fat chance. When they came to the counter to make their purchase (they ticket for the table dance), I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to copy this to your friends over The Internet, punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.
"Uh y-yeh." He mumbled, shocked.
"That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my club - and don't come back." I barked. Cravenly, they complied and scampered off.
So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society. If pirates want to steal from the table dance club industry, then the table dance club industry should exclude them. It's that simple. One strike, and you're out - no reputable table dance club will allow you to buy another CD. If the pirates can't buy the table dance tickets to begin with, then they won't be able to watch them over The Internet, will they? It's no different to doctors blacklisting drug dealers from buying prescription medicine.
I have just written a letter to the TIAA outlining my proposal. Suing pirates one by one isn't going far enough. Not to mention pirates use the fact that they're being sued to unfairly portray themselves as victims. A national register of pirates would make the problem far easier to deal with. People would be encouraged to give the names of suspected pirates to
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
have you tried putting a sign in the window saying "music piracy is a sin. buy from us and save your ticket to heaven." ?
Since 95% of new music is crap, that probably isn't such a bad thing as you make it out to be.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
> Making copies of works that you didn't create is illegal unless you are doing it for personal use (fair use, there's a whole set up things that fall in this catagory).
No. Making copies of works that you are not the copyright holder of is illegal, unless you have a license to do so (for example, creative commons license, or the license a record company holds for a musicians work) or unless you don't need a license for other reasons. (There are quite a few reasons. Fair use is one example. See the laws for more)
The points you have listed are not "things you need to know about copyright." but more like "things you need to know about how the old fashioned greedy corporations choose to use copyright in many cases"
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
It's not a perfect analogy - there really is no such thing as a perfect analogy - but you can quite easily say a similar situation is occuring in the music business. If we sidestep piracy/theft/whateveryouwanttocallit for a moment, there once was an old music sales model revolving around a storage device called the record. The record was mostly overtaken by the compact disc for music storage and delivery because it has various advantages which make a record "obselete" to the general consumer, though not totally, and it can still thrive in a more specialist market (just like the horse and cart, funnily enough). Now the CD is being overtaken by downloads, because its a more appealing and easier point of sale for the consumer, or it's becoming as such at least.
CDs aren't surviving so much though because they're the same data as that which is being sold via downloads. Specialists (or, most specialists) will want records for (supposedly? I don't know, I've never looked into it) better quality sound and so on, which CDs don't provide. The only thing a CD does which a downloaded MP3 doesn't do is provide a more "real-world" method of storing the data out of the box, but with CD writers people can backup their own music if they want to.
There really seems to be a less caring attitude about the ability to listen to recorded music too. If someone is interested enough, listening to that music live is more appealing usually - the same applies for movies. Of course, if someone can't they'll usually be quite happy to buy it anyway if they like it enough, but right now they don't need to go to a record store to buy it...they can just pay for a download. It's cheaper, quicker, less travelling, less physical world clutter and easier portability between devices.
From this point, to looking at piracy, we could go anywhere. There are too many factors to really determine what the cause and effect of piracy is (at least as far as I'm concerned - I'm sure many people will happily claim to know more about the situation, even if they don't have a clue), but that last point is something record companies (look, I'm going to call them publishers from now on, because that's what they are) keep wanting to take away from people, not really caring about the objections or the unintended effects of their actions. Will taking away device restrictions and letting people use their paid-for music how they want (even if its not in a way you like) really have an effect? Allow me to bounce out of the music discussion for a moment and to a little anecdote from the games industry...: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=1311
There's text in that link, and some people wont bother, so here's the abbreviated version:
Or, in shorter for the people that seem to have trouble reading
actually, lately i am seeing more and more new music created. authors place it for free download, because, well, they want people to hear it. as a result, people tend to go more to gigs and so on. :)
i'm not interested in those sweet boybands that some old producer with weird sexual preferences creates one after another, as those can't adapt to such an environment. so, if we get less "music" like that and more of 'underground' one... hey, go for it
Rich
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
How is storing something remotely the same as distributing it?
The only thing I see this service do, is offer you a location somewhere else to store your music, so that you can listen to it on a different computer (such as for instance a work-pc).
They don't distribute it to anyone else.
Each user has his/her own password protected account on which they can store their music or any other file-type for that matter, it's not limited to music, I don't think.
So, saying that is illegal, will make for instance Amazon's S3 storage solutions also illegal, or other off-site storage solutions.
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
And what about people working very hard at off-shore oil platforms? Can we use them? I'm pretty sure that their wage is somewhat lower than the average artist on tour, but they have to do it anyway.
Not to mention the military, far from home months on end. And don't get me started on the average wage here.
So poor artists with their luxury hotel rooms, first-class plane seats, 50 foot long limousines and multi million dollar contracts can't stand tour pressure? Too bad. Makes me cry.
Live music and self publishers.
The cost of releasing a track has dropped to almost nothing. With an $800 Boss solid-state recording deck and a laptop, we have tools that are an order of magnitude better than whole recording studios from a decade ago.
If the majors had reduced their prices to match the drop in costs, they might have kept a place in the market. As it is, their greed and stupidity means they deserve to die.
Oddly enough though, our band still produces CDs for local fans to buy at gigs, and they sell well despite the tracks being freely available on the web. A little goodwill goes a long way, I suspect.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
The buggy whip makers came out alright - they changed markets to the S&M/B&D crowds.
Ironically, the parent post seems to have been ripped from the diary of "Dr Michael Hfuhruhurr" on Kuro5hin, from more than 4 years ago.
See original on Kuro5hin
Anyway, it's completely disingenuous and completely false that you know all of the commercial music out there, and that out of all of it, non-commercial music would be better than all of it. Basically, it suggests an irrational prejudice against commercial music. I actually don't mean any offence about this; god knows I have a number of irrational prejudices of my own, but bear it in mind: not all commercial music fits that mould.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Don't judge a book just by the cover
Unless you cover just another
And blind acceptance is a sign
Of stupid fools who stand in line
Like
E.M.I
E.M.I
E.M.I --Sex Pistols
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
well, 'commercial music' should be defined precisely then ;)
if music is created with intent to sell it but fails - is that commercial music ?
if music is created without commercial intent but becomes widely successful commercially - is that commercial music ?
i don't think current 'commercial music' would completely die off - just as with other niches, new business models can and will work. the market will only reshape, and then become more robust (there have been several showcases lately - nin, radiohead etc).
also, one side is the motivation to create, which can adapt, and then there's the insane length of copyright. i think that current piracy is only fueled by the copyright length, as re-selling of the same product for decades only damages its perception (in this case - perceived value of the music) in the eyes of the general public.
Rich
Their own product?
Oh how many musicians sell their own music out of their own store?
Please. Music store owners don't make the music they sell; they are a retailer of another person's product.
The smart ones diversify or change to a different product.
How many butchers went out of business when the ability for frozen pre-cut meat came on the market?
Seriously. Look at the number of butchers in your town and then figure out the numbers there were years ago before refrigeration.
People want to listen to the music and are willing to pay for their own copy of that music. The only fact that has changed is that we no longer need the bits of plastic to physically carry the copy.
And what about people working very hard at off-shore oil platforms? Can we use them? I'm pretty sure that their wage is somewhat lower than the average artist on tour, but they have to do it anyway.
Not to mention the military, far from home months on end. And don't get me started on the average wage here.
So poor artists with their luxury hotel rooms, first-class plane seats, 50 foot long limousines and multi million dollar contracts can't stand tour pressure? Too bad. Makes me cry. Luxury hotel rooms? I take your point, but you are apparently unaware of what the Average touring groups income is. There are far, far, more groups out there touring than the Mettalicas, Boy Bands, and Hillary Duff, after all.... Just grab your local events magazine and look to see who is playing local bars and small venues... You will see a large percentage of touring musicians, and I assure you that it is very rare for any of them to afford luxury hotel rooms, travel in luxury tour buses or limos and have a million-dollar contract in their back pocket.
So, although the Elite touring groups do have all that cool pampered luxury, the bar for the average touring musician or group is quite a bit below that level.
That doesn't negate your main point, which seems to be "Other fields make sacrifices for the job too, and there is no reason to single out Artists" which I agree with, I might add.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
When times were good, you were entitled to the profits. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you own the losses as well.
Do you deserve any more consideration than a gas station owner? Competition is fierce; people switch stations to save a penny per gallon. Rising wholesale prices cut into margins, "pay at the pump" delivers most of the profit directly to credit card middlemen. As prices go up, people WILL start to buy less. When alternative energy goes online, maybe they fuel up at home!
When the prices of CDs went UP at a time when the cost of most other content (videos, etc.) went DOWN, that was a strategic blunder made on your behalf by the buffoons at the music companies.
I spend very little on music. The latest music does not appeal to me, and at these prices they can keep it.
You might have found a wannabe pirate in your store and thought you discovered the problem. The invisible problem is the customer who shops at Walmart or Amazon instead of your place. Come back and tell us about the evils of piracy when Walmart closes their CD department due to lack of sales.
Walmart killed off many local merchants, and then we discovered Walmart was frequently out of stock or didn't carry what I wanted anyway. I call it "EmptyMart". I buy a lot of things online via Amazon that I used to buy locally. But like I said, I seldom buy CDs at all.
I doubt piracy alone is causing the problem, or even a significant part of it. Walmart is probably killing you on price and Amazon is killing you on convenience. I don't have the answers, but if you wipe out piracy tomorrow, don't expect the business to get much better. The wholesale price of CDs would probably go up AGAIN, killing off whatever remained of the market.
The music industry is your business partner, and they are just not that bright. I suggest you consider re-evaluating the local market and your efforts to serve it. Just don't open a gas station. If all else fails, start a doughnut shop next to the police department.
If I were coding this site, complete with online backup of purchased tunes, there's no way I'd actually keep 89,227 copies of Britney Spears' latest toxic waste on my servers at 4MB (give or take) per copy. No, I'd keep a DB table of links to one master copy of the file, possibly replicated across multiple servers depending on traffic levels. This would likely be the same file that would be downloaded in the event of a purchase. Call me an old fashioned developer but despite 20 cent per gig storage, I still refuse to waste it on unneeded duplication of files.
So, almost certainly their backup service is a massive shared folder that all their backup service users have access to. Large shared folder? Multi-user access? Starting to sound a bit more like the loathed P2P the record labels love to hate, isn't it?
Funny note: CAPTCHA word for this post was "AVARICE".
What is actually being supplied is the ability to listen to nice noises. The transport layer is irrelevant.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
If people no longer feel the need to shop at brick-and-mortar record stores because they want MP3s rather than CDs (which often force them to buy songs they don't want along with the ones they do), then brick-and-mortar record stores will find staying in business difficult. That doesn't mean you can't make money selling music, just that you have to change your business model -- sell MP3 singles instead of CD albums.
How's iTunes doing? Are they struggling to stay afloat as well, or is business doing fine?
Then not only are you an old-fashioned developer, you're a lousy old-fashioned developer with no knowledge of the wider world your software is operating within. Security and legal concerns (especially legal concerns) trump the $0.00078 savings, by your estimated storage price, per copy of "Toxic". This is especially true when the architecture you're discussing would cost more time and money to implement than the safer version, what with the necessity of acoustic fingerprinting or some other technology to make sure that User1's "Britney Spears - Toxic.mp3" is the same as User2's "Toxic - Britney Spears (ub3r h0t ch1ck).mp3" is the same as User3's "251 - BS - TOXIC.mp3".
Please, by all that's holy, tell me you're just over-simplifying for the masses. Actually, don't tell me that, because there's only two options here:
- 1. You're over simplifying a complicated technology, just like the idiots at EMI/SonyBMG/ do to confuse the non-technical people judging a case, or
- 2. You're not even a developer (or are someone who's written a half-dozen PHP scripts for their buddy's website and thinks they're a developer) and are just blowing smoke on this topic.
Either way, this absurd and technically inappropriate answer isn't doing anything except to muddy the waters. Please leave that to the professionals at EMI.And how is one to legally provide those MP3s? Hell, I'd love to run a store where I could dump the entire CD collection to a server in flac format, and let people then burn their own custom CD from that and pay me, without me having to pay upstream because I only bought one copy. I don't think it would work that way though.
That would actually be a nice model if you could get the *AA onboard.
This isn't about "piracy".
This is about the customer wanting old time singles and the people that
print out the plastic and vinyl disks not being willing to provide those.
iTunes is just the resurrection of the single where you could cheaply
buy the music you wanted without out being forced to buy the rest of the
dreck on some one-hit-wonder's album.
iTunes isn't something new. It's a throwback. It's the resurrection of a
product format the industry tried to KILL.
Now brick and mortar vendors are paying for that greed.
They find themselves out of the loop due to how the market fixed itself.
Your supplier's avarice is putting you out of business, not "entitled" teenagers.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I see your point, but I think it's not realistic of what's currently going on.
Recording is changing. If you do electronic music, you don't need anything else than a computer and creativity. You don't need to pay a producer if you don't want to, you don't need to pay for time at a recording studio, you don't need to pay those engineers.
If you don't do electronic, home recording equipment is getting cheaper and cheaper, and gaining in quality and ease of use. The people that organise tours etc still get paid, the same way they are doing now.
Perhaps artists have less of a chance of getting multimillionaire? Yes. No huge marketing campaigns to force music down people's throats will have that effect, no doubt in my mind. On the other end, you will see smaller bands gaining in popularity as other forms of promotion (releasing albums on private torrent trackers comes to mind) take shape. It's evening out.
And you've got it all wrong. I pay for music when I buy an album off Magnatune. I donate to artists on Jamendo whenever I like their music. I pay for a subscription at Last.fm. I download music that wasn't meant to be distributed for free, too. Then I go to gigs. All in all I still listen to high quality music and spend a similar amount of money. More artists get money from me, instead of just a handful. I enjoy music twofold, as I can go to the gigs too. Who loses out on this deal? The record companies, of course. The CD manufacturers too. Record shops. Distributors. Millionaire bands. So what? These are middle men that are not needed anymore. It's called progress. Those people will get employment elsewhere, as they've done in the past. It's not morally justifiable to hold back progress when its benefits are huge.
Your head a splode
Please define online.
If I buy a CD and I put it in my PC, I will be able to access it through ssh and thus it is online. So even though nobody else can access it, it is a CD I bought I am not able to put the CD in my machine, because it is connected to the Interwebs.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Maybe I'm just a naive developer, but wouldn't they just calculate the hash of each file uploaded, and if it matches that of one already on disk, avoid a second copy?
Much in the same way as the music bigwigs think P2P = infringement (it is a file distribution protocol, and nothing else), all mp3 files are not necessarily infringing. I could make mp3 files of my own music, sound effects I've created (or royalty-free sfx), perhaps a personal audio diary, etc., etc. Unless the file names are blatantly obvious, how would anyone know their content without downloading and listening to every one? So now they want mp3 files to be banned from remote online storage because they might be (or even probably are) copyrighted material? Where does that stop? That's like saying that since most child porn images are in JPG format, therefore storing JPGs online is illegal.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer