That's rediculous. It's like saying that because there was no sign posted near the shelf of CDs being sold at the CD Store's sidewalk sale, that the 12 year-old was justified in filling up her backpack and leaving without paying.
It may seem stupid for the RIAA to go after a 12 year-old, but it's actually quite smart, since they will get all sorts of awareness out of it relatively inexpensively. Also, people aren't going to stop liking Britney Spears over it.
Did you use windows forms and.net to write the windows UI? If not, try that and I bet you'll be able to do it in 1 week (download the 60 day trial of visual studio.net 2003).
Also, you may be an expert who would be roughly as productive with vi as with a more sophisticated editor. You may also cost twice as much as a more novice programmer who could be 75% as efficient as you for 50% the cost. That's where the cost savings comes into play.
It doesn't interfere with typing... if you want to type the rest of the characters (after completion) you can... or, if you want to save time you can hit tab.
If you consider the productivity gained by using an IDE such as Visual Studio.NET 2003.
You have intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help that will pull full documentation on any statement you are typing with one click.
You also benefit from languages like VB.NET and C#, which are very high level and make it easy to write conceptually clear and error-free code.
It makes it possible to become comfortable with a new object model without having to flip though documentation or constantly search the web. You'd be surprised how fast and simple it is to create relatively sophisticated apps that perform pretty darn well.
I really don't see DRM as such a terrible thing, since we each have the choice of whether to purchase DRM'ed products or to go without them (or purchase alternatives).
Surely, it may take a while before all of the non-DRM alternatives come out of the woodwork, but they will in time if they represent a viable business model.
I don't blame the RIAA or the MPAA for what they've done with their lawyers. It is congress that lacks the scrupels necessary to prevent such abuses. And for that matter it is the people who elect those congressmen and women.
Maybe when everyone's computer is shadowed by the strictness of DRM, people will become more concerned with the DMCA and how it came to be.
If the RIAA will make more money by sending a bunch of lawyers to Washington then it will by finding new talent, then something is wrong in Washington. The same applies to any industry expecting a handout.
Anti-trust action, while it may be warranted, will always be slower than legitimate competition. Monopolies artificially raise prices to the point where there is a MASSIVE incentive to enter a particular market. At $18 for a piece of plastic, a jacket, and one or two decent songs, I'd say there's a pretty strong incentive right now.
All of that may be true, but what we're talking about here is a contract between the purchaser and the provider for terms of use. Those may coincide precisely with what the DRM allows.
You may be right that a 99 year copyright term is a nonoptimal length of time to protect copyright. Perhaps the ideal time period is 4 years, or maybe 150 years.
Copyright protection is in principle very similar to intellectual property protection. In the past, it was the work of a man's muscles that paid his wages, but as time has gone on, the product of a man's mind has become much more valuable than the work of his muscles. Today, most people could expect roughly $8/hour for their physical labor.
It seems to me that the backlash against intellectual property and copyright protection operates somewhat in parallel to the nostalgia we feel toward hard physical labor. Labor day, in fact, celebrates those who participate in rigorous physical toil, not those whose expertise and intellect create innovations that increase everyone's productivity and standard of living.
Getting back to copyright terms, you may be right that 99 years is too long. As I recall it was recently increased from 70 years due to pressure from Disney, etc. It may very well also be true that some companies pay lobbyists and lawyers lots of money to create laws to protect their corporate interests, and that the laws which are subsequently passed do not create a perfectly fair playing field. That is a lamentable situation that takes place in all industries and needs to be stopped. The only way to stop it is to create increased transparency for money spent by congress.
So now let me ask you the most important question. This is a question I'm sure you've reflected on before. If the recording industry is so backwards and so stupid, why hasn't someone smarter (you, perhaps) gone into business to create a service that provides what customers want at a reasonable price and via a reasonable distribution method? It would seem that given the idiocy of the RIAA (an assertion I don't wholely disagree with) there would be plenty of room for new entrants into the music business.
So what would be required? 1) A good distribution platform: This already exists in the form of P2P technology and the web. 2) Consumer interest: This also already exists -- people love music 3) High quality music to sell to people: This also exists, since there are plenty of talented unknown musicians who would happily record music if they could get a better deal than the draconian contracts the RIAA typically signs with new artists. 4) Seed capital: One of the other virtues of capitalism is that you only have to convince one wealthy person that you have a good idea in order to get it funded. There are plenty of rich people around.
So why hasn't anyone done this? MP3.com appears to have made a good start, so why hasn't it replaced the RIAA yet?
Excuse me if I sound cynical about the anti-RIAA viewpoint, but most people's answers at this point start to sound a lot like conspiracy theories.
If anything, the increased use of DRM will speed up the migration toward garage bands and local acts (such as the music on mp3.com). People are already adapted to the new distribution mechanism, and as soon as the RIAA + DRM makes it tough to trade music, MP3.com will become the path of least resistance.
My point to you is that there is likely going to be a change in the industry over time. The RIAA has acted sluggishly and may have actually missed the boat by allowing the public to become so adept at swapping songs and expecting to do it for free. But in order to believe that there is going to be a change you don't have to decide to toss copyright law out the window.
Copyright law will help make MP3.com a success and will help the musicians selling music there to put food on the table without having to work as waiters and waitresses. You may have an ideological disgreement with copyright law, but for the most part (in my opinion) it does more good than harm, particularly in our age of innovation and the age of the mind's supremacy over simple physical toil.
So, let's work within the law and create a viable alternative to music theft. The RIAA is very much a dinosaur, and you're right that it may become extinct. But wouldn't it be better to have it become extinct through its own screw-ups rather than because we all looted its property?
The limits granted by law? I assume you feel that when people download unpurchased music from Kazaa and Napster, they are doing something perfectly legal then?
You're right, it is a good business model. It will be best for people who want to constantly broaden their musical horizons, and who want to do it legally. If you prefer traditional CDs as a distribution method, they'll still be around for a while.
People voluntarily enter into contracts in a free society. The existence of copyright law is what makes record companies want to go into the business of selling music. If laws to protect that property didn't exist, the companies wouldn't have gone into business in the first place.
You can't have it both ways. You can't have companies investing millions of dollars in recuruiting and marketing talent, and still expect to obtain the end result for free.
To an extent, free distribution in the short term can enlighten some prospective customers to the benefits of a product (whether it's a pirated cd or a pirated copy of photoshop), but ultimately it is up to the company to define the terms on which it will invest money into advertising, and the methods it will use to accomplish such advertising.
Make no mistake about it, you are free to buy a sax and a digital recorder and make your recordings available for free on Kazaa. In fact, I encourage you to do this. If enough people love your music, then they will stop buying or stealing the RIAA's music.
The motivation for technological advancement that you mention brings up an interesting issue. Would you rather have industry develop better ways of distributing music (and better music)? Or would you rather have it spend money developing DRM technology to protect its investment. When people break the law and steal music, it forces recording industry dollars to be spent protecting the status quo, rather than enhancing it.
Kind of like if you keep robbing a party store sooner or later they'll have to invest in an alarm system and bars on the windows instead of investing in hiring new employees (possibly you) or in growing the business.
You sort of have a point. DRM is a way of coercing people to respect your copyright... kind of like using a gun to force people to respect your property rights.
Ok... and by the same token DRM and efficient internet distribution (widespread broadband, inexpensive large-capacity mp3 players, evolved DRM technology) has become a lot cheaper lately too.
I think that would count as distributing copyrighted content... you could probably do that if the RIAA agreed on the proper fee structure. Isn't that what launch.com does?
Hmm... radio... + telephone.... let's call it a cordless phone. Too bad everyone waited years before thinking to combine the two and sell it as a cordless (or cellular) phone, even though the two technologies existed adequately in separate form for years.
Sometimes it takes genius to market an idea that anyone could have had and make it a reality. Haven't you seen those Accenture ads?
The answer is quite simple: The DRM technology wasn't quite there yet, and perhaps the reality of fileswappers stealing the music hadn't hit home enough for the record companies to bite on any of the many proposals for innovative distribution systems that were probably presented to them by prescient techies.
Good points. I don't think anyone wants DRM to be the only choice, but it definitely makes sense for most mainstream content providers. I think it will come in the form of a dongle, or some kind of encrypted storage device that may be read only by devices that are authorized by the DRM provider.
Of course, there will still be some artists, and a lot of people trying to spread the word about their music, who will make non-DRM music readily available.
Hahaha. The further it is from Napster (total anarchy with no profits being made by anyone, not even Napster). I wonder how long that will succeed.
The system I described would actually work better than Napster for most people: All good rips of the songs, excellent selection of songs, no viri, fully legal, it won't get shut down just when people get into it.
You have a good point. The good news for you is that Microsoft will likely come up with a plan that works for people with listening habits similar to yours. The standard annual fee is likely targeted at the average person.
Go ahead and stand up for what you believe in. A court may find that you owe the record company some money... if you belive that you are a modern-day Robin Hood, then maybe someday people will tell their kids stories about you... the one thing that is likely is that if the legal system catches up with you you'll end up a bit poorer.
Note: I said 120 iTunes songs because of all of the album discounts that they have on the site. In reality it would probably be closer to 80 or 90 songs for $60, assuming you had some consistent taste among artists/albums.
The fact that the auction has been pulled should convince anyone who has wondered that DRM is the only way for companies to profitably sell music on the internet.
Incidentally, it is also a testament to the likely success of Microsoft's upcoming music download service, where you pay an annual fee and may download any 60 songs for playback on a handful of certified devices that are digitally tied to your account. If you get tired of some of the songs, you can turn them in and exchange them for new ones.
When you think about it, this plan makes a lot of sense, since it ushers in the new era of portable digital storage, which you can plug into your car, your expensive Harmon Karden system, or your walkman. It also makes sense in that it will probably make record companies more money than they make today, while making consumers happier.
Wouldn't you like to pay $120 per year and be able to "rent" any 60 songs at any time for as long as you want???
Right now, you could buy 8 or 9 CDs, or 120 iTunes songs, which for most people wouldn't be enough to really establish a satisfactory music library.
I know this post sounds pro-Microsoft, but it's actually pro-capitalism and pro-innovation. Capitalism works so well because it always encourages companies to come up with a better mousetrap, or in this case a better music distribution system.
That is not a problem with the software platform being vulnerable, since the same can happen with Eudora, or any other mail client.
Incidentally, outlook express has a feature (which is enabled by default) which does prevent this. It effectively locks the user out of any attachments that might contain vulnerabilities. I don't know if Outlook has this feature or not, but you should definitely take a look at this in express.
Slashdot Mirror
That's rediculous. It's like saying that because there was no sign posted near the shelf of CDs being sold at the CD Store's sidewalk sale, that the 12 year-old was justified in filling up her backpack and leaving without paying.
It may seem stupid for the RIAA to go after a 12 year-old, but it's actually quite smart, since they will get all sorts of awareness out of it relatively inexpensively. Also, people aren't going to stop liking Britney Spears over it.
Did you use windows forms and .net to write the windows UI? If not, try that and I bet you'll be able to do it in 1 week (download the 60 day trial of visual studio .net 2003).
Also, you may be an expert who would be roughly as productive with vi as with a more sophisticated editor. You may also cost twice as much as a more novice programmer who could be 75% as efficient as you for 50% the cost. That's where the cost savings comes into play.
How do you turn those features on in Emacs? Does Xemacs have them?
It doesn't interfere with typing... if you want to type the rest of the characters (after completion) you can... or, if you want to save time you can hit tab.
If you consider the productivity gained by using an IDE such as Visual Studio .NET 2003.
You have intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help that will pull full documentation on any statement you are typing with one click.
You also benefit from languages like VB.NET and C#, which are very high level and make it easy to write conceptually clear and error-free code.
It makes it possible to become comfortable with a new object model without having to flip though documentation or constantly search the web. You'd be surprised how fast and simple it is to create relatively sophisticated apps that perform pretty darn well.
I really don't see DRM as such a terrible thing, since we each have the choice of whether to purchase DRM'ed products or to go without them (or purchase alternatives).
Surely, it may take a while before all of the non-DRM alternatives come out of the woodwork, but they will in time if they represent a viable business model.
I don't blame the RIAA or the MPAA for what they've done with their lawyers. It is congress that lacks the scrupels necessary to prevent such abuses. And for that matter it is the people who elect those congressmen and women.
Maybe when everyone's computer is shadowed by the strictness of DRM, people will become more concerned with the DMCA and how it came to be.
If the RIAA will make more money by sending a bunch of lawyers to Washington then it will by finding new talent, then something is wrong in Washington. The same applies to any industry expecting a handout.
Anti-trust action, while it may be warranted, will always be slower than legitimate competition. Monopolies artificially raise prices to the point where there is a MASSIVE incentive to enter a particular market. At $18 for a piece of plastic, a jacket, and one or two decent songs, I'd say there's a pretty strong incentive right now.
If he only shares the ones that aren't copyrighted, then that is legal. If that is his preference, then he won't be a customer of DRM'ed music.
You should only consider DRM to have a crippling effect if you planned on violating the allowable terms of use granted by the seller.
All of that may be true, but what we're talking about here is a contract between the purchaser and the provider for terms of use. Those may coincide precisely with what the DRM allows.
You may be right that a 99 year copyright term is a nonoptimal length of time to protect copyright. Perhaps the ideal time period is 4 years, or maybe 150 years.
Copyright protection is in principle very similar to intellectual property protection. In the past, it was the work of a man's muscles that paid his wages, but as time has gone on, the product of a man's mind has become much more valuable than the work of his muscles. Today, most people could expect roughly $8/hour for their physical labor.
It seems to me that the backlash against intellectual property and copyright protection operates somewhat in parallel to the nostalgia we feel toward hard physical labor. Labor day, in fact, celebrates those who participate in rigorous physical toil, not those whose expertise and intellect create innovations that increase everyone's productivity and standard of living.
Getting back to copyright terms, you may be right that 99 years is too long. As I recall it was recently increased from 70 years due to pressure from Disney, etc. It may very well also be true that some companies pay lobbyists and lawyers lots of money to create laws to protect their corporate interests, and that the laws which are subsequently passed do not create a perfectly fair playing field. That is a lamentable situation that takes place in all industries and needs to be stopped. The only way to stop it is to create increased transparency for money spent by congress.
So now let me ask you the most important question. This is a question I'm sure you've reflected on before. If the recording industry is so backwards and so stupid, why hasn't someone smarter (you, perhaps) gone into business to create a service that provides what customers want at a reasonable price and via a reasonable distribution method? It would seem that given the idiocy of the RIAA (an assertion I don't wholely disagree with) there would be plenty of room for new entrants into the music business.
So what would be required?
1) A good distribution platform: This already exists in the form of P2P technology and the web.
2) Consumer interest: This also already exists -- people love music
3) High quality music to sell to people: This also exists, since there are plenty of talented unknown musicians who would happily record music if they could get a better deal than the draconian contracts the RIAA typically signs with new artists.
4) Seed capital: One of the other virtues of capitalism is that you only have to convince one wealthy person that you have a good idea in order to get it funded. There are plenty of rich people around.
So why hasn't anyone done this? MP3.com appears to have made a good start, so why hasn't it replaced the RIAA yet?
Excuse me if I sound cynical about the anti-RIAA viewpoint, but most people's answers at this point start to sound a lot like conspiracy theories.
If anything, the increased use of DRM will speed up the migration toward garage bands and local acts (such as the music on mp3.com). People are already adapted to the new distribution mechanism, and as soon as the RIAA + DRM makes it tough to trade music, MP3.com will become the path of least resistance.
My point to you is that there is likely going to be a change in the industry over time. The RIAA has acted sluggishly and may have actually missed the boat by allowing the public to become so adept at swapping songs and expecting to do it for free. But in order to believe that there is going to be a change you don't have to decide to toss copyright law out the window.
Copyright law will help make MP3.com a success and will help the musicians selling music there to put food on the table without having to work as waiters and waitresses. You may have an ideological disgreement with copyright law, but for the most part (in my opinion) it does more good than harm, particularly in our age of innovation and the age of the mind's supremacy over simple physical toil.
So, let's work within the law and create a viable alternative to music theft. The RIAA is very much a dinosaur, and you're right that it may become extinct. But wouldn't it be better to have it become extinct through its own screw-ups rather than because we all looted its property?
The limits granted by law? I assume you feel that when people download unpurchased music from Kazaa and Napster, they are doing something perfectly legal then?
You're right, it is a good business model. It will be best for people who want to constantly broaden their musical horizons, and who want to do it legally. If you prefer traditional CDs as a distribution method, they'll still be around for a while.
People voluntarily enter into contracts in a free society. The existence of copyright law is what makes record companies want to go into the business of selling music. If laws to protect that property didn't exist, the companies wouldn't have gone into business in the first place.
You can't have it both ways. You can't have companies investing millions of dollars in recuruiting and marketing talent, and still expect to obtain the end result for free.
To an extent, free distribution in the short term can enlighten some prospective customers to the benefits of a product (whether it's a pirated cd or a pirated copy of photoshop), but ultimately it is up to the company to define the terms on which it will invest money into advertising, and the methods it will use to accomplish such advertising.
Make no mistake about it, you are free to buy a sax and a digital recorder and make your recordings available for free on Kazaa. In fact, I encourage you to do this. If enough people love your music, then they will stop buying or stealing the RIAA's music.
The motivation for technological advancement that you mention brings up an interesting issue. Would you rather have industry develop better ways of distributing music (and better music)? Or would you rather have it spend money developing DRM technology to protect its investment. When people break the law and steal music, it forces recording industry dollars to be spent protecting the status quo, rather than enhancing it.
Kind of like if you keep robbing a party store sooner or later they'll have to invest in an alarm system and bars on the windows instead of investing in hiring new employees (possibly you) or in growing the business.
You sort of have a point. DRM is a way of coercing people to respect your copyright... kind of like using a gun to force people to respect your property rights.
Ok... and by the same token DRM and efficient internet distribution (widespread broadband, inexpensive large-capacity mp3 players, evolved DRM technology) has become a lot cheaper lately too.
I think that would count as distributing copyrighted content... you could probably do that if the RIAA agreed on the proper fee structure. Isn't that what launch.com does?
If you enter into a contract with someone, you agree to live by the terms of that contract. It's not always as simple as ownership vs. non-ownership.
Hmm... radio... + telephone.... let's call it a cordless phone. Too bad everyone waited years before thinking to combine the two and sell it as a cordless (or cellular) phone, even though the two technologies existed adequately in separate form for years.
Sometimes it takes genius to market an idea that anyone could have had and make it a reality. Haven't you seen those Accenture ads?
The answer is quite simple: The DRM technology wasn't quite there yet, and perhaps the reality of fileswappers stealing the music hadn't hit home enough for the record companies to bite on any of the many proposals for innovative distribution systems that were probably presented to them by prescient techies.
Good points. I don't think anyone wants DRM to be the only choice, but it definitely makes sense for most mainstream content providers. I think it will come in the form of a dongle, or some kind of encrypted storage device that may be read only by devices that are authorized by the DRM provider.
Of course, there will still be some artists, and a lot of people trying to spread the word about their music, who will make non-DRM music readily available.
Hahaha. The further it is from Napster (total anarchy with no profits being made by anyone, not even Napster). I wonder how long that will succeed.
The system I described would actually work better than Napster for most people: All good rips of the songs, excellent selection of songs, no viri, fully legal, it won't get shut down just when people get into it.
You have a good point. The good news for you is that Microsoft will likely come up with a plan that works for people with listening habits similar to yours. The standard annual fee is likely targeted at the average person.
Go ahead and stand up for what you believe in. A court may find that you owe the record company some money... if you belive that you are a modern-day Robin Hood, then maybe someday people will tell their kids stories about you... the one thing that is likely is that if the legal system catches up with you you'll end up a bit poorer.
Note: I said 120 iTunes songs because of all of the album discounts that they have on the site. In reality it would probably be closer to 80 or 90 songs for $60, assuming you had some consistent taste among artists/albums.
The fact that the auction has been pulled should convince anyone who has wondered that DRM is the only way for companies to profitably sell music on the internet.
Incidentally, it is also a testament to the likely success of Microsoft's upcoming music download service, where you pay an annual fee and may download any 60 songs for playback on a handful of certified devices that are digitally tied to your account. If you get tired of some of the songs, you can turn them in and exchange them for new ones.
When you think about it, this plan makes a lot of sense, since it ushers in the new era of portable digital storage, which you can plug into your car, your expensive Harmon Karden system, or your walkman. It also makes sense in that it will probably make record companies more money than they make today, while making consumers happier.
Wouldn't you like to pay $120 per year and be able to "rent" any 60 songs at any time for as long as you want???
Right now, you could buy 8 or 9 CDs, or 120 iTunes songs, which for most people wouldn't be enough to really establish a satisfactory music library.
I know this post sounds pro-Microsoft, but it's actually pro-capitalism and pro-innovation. Capitalism works so well because it always encourages companies to come up with a better mousetrap, or in this case a better music distribution system.
That is not a problem with the software platform being vulnerable, since the same can happen with Eudora, or any other mail client.
Incidentally, outlook express has a feature (which is enabled by default) which does prevent this. It effectively locks the user out of any attachments that might contain vulnerabilities. I don't know if Outlook has this feature or not, but you should definitely take a look at this in express.