"NO IT'S NOT. The difference is we Canadians PAY the CRIA for EVERY SINGLE BLANK DISK WE BUY, WHETHER IT IS TO BE USED FOR MUSIC OR NOT."
The money goes to the CPCC, a non-profit agency. Most of the money is redistributed to songwriters and recording artists. Some goes to record labels. None goes directly to the CRIA.
"That's why we have the right to share music."
Not correct. Canadian law currently says that you can download copyrighted music in some cases, and there is a levy paid to the CPCC on recordable media. These are independent facts. You do not have a socialized music industry. Your health care system works somewhat like this (you can get free health care because you pay taxes) but there's no similar corelation in the music industry.
You're not the first Canadian to come to this incorrect conclusion, however.
"I guess that "pirate tax" on all recordable media is redundant and can be removed now? It was there to "protect the artists," but now the lawyers on the hunt trying to "protect the artists.""
Doubtful. Here in the US we pay all sorts of taxes and levies and it doesn't get us any protection. For example, local and national police forces are paid for through taxes, yet paying the taxes doesn't prevent us from being arrested if we do something naughty.
Lots of Canadians think that downloading is legal because there is a levy on blank media. While this is a reasonable assumption (I believe that they think this because their health care system works in such a manner), it's not correct -- Canada doesn't have a socialized music industry. The facts that there is a levy on recordable media, and that downloading of copyrighted materials against the copyright holders' will is currently allowable in some circumstances, are not corelated.
"How, precisely, is it "promoting the progress of science and useful arts" to have copyright extended indefinitely? Note also that it says "authors" - not "decendants of authors" or "corporations of which the author is affiliated.""
Now if it weren't for the 14th Amendment, the Santa Clara decision, etc., you'd be on to something. The sad truth is that corporations have been people since 1889. The upside, of course, is that the 14th Amendment made African-American males people as well.
"The thing is, if any movie producers/directors decided to distribute their works over the internet, they might not be able(allowed) to go on big screen anymore."
On the contrary; many directors have gotten their start by creating films which they've distributed online. My grandmother was in one such film that was an online sensation for a time (if you never caught it... trust me, you probably wouldn't want to see your own grandmother in it) and which opened a few (small) doors for the director. And, a few years back, BMW recruited Joe Carnahan, Tony Scott, and John Woo to direct some short films that were distributed on BMW's web site. This didn't hurt their careers. Online film distribution is a huge industry, and has been for quite a while. Just spend a few minutes browsing ifilm and you'll see what I mean.
Thanks for your well-reasoned rebuttal. You're correct that there is a difference between a jump between physical mediums and a jump from physical to online delivery, but the common element is consumer acceptance. Slashdotters are the early adopters here, and face it, we don't represent the consumer market as a whole. We're way ahead of it. I think we'll start seeing some changes soon; the Media Center PC push will (if Microsoft has their way) get PCs into living rooms in unprecedented numbers. Once that happens, the potential market for Internet TV/movie downloads might hit critical mass.
By the way, this is one of those general concepts of technology curves and consumer behavior that's not limited to tunes and movies. The first GPS bird was launched in 1978, and only today is it finally becoming easy to find a $20K car with GPS navigation as an option.
Either way, if you find yourself saying "I'm smart and I can't believe everybody else is so stupid," it's time to do one of two things: apply a healthy dose of Occam's Razor, or go into business for yourself. If you think you're right and the media companies are wrong, and there's enough of a market for pay-per-download films/TV to make it worthwhile, write that business plan, talk to some investors, and do it. That's how I became wealthy, and you can do it, too.
" I don't understand how media companies can be so far behind on figuring out digital distribution over the internet..."
I've always wondered how posts that start with "I don't understand..." can be modded insightful.
But anyway, it may help your understanding to ask your parents about what it was like to be around during the dawn of the CD. To make a long story short, it took a full ten years for the music industry to fully support it, and for us early adopters, it was hard going. I'm of the understanding that it also took about ten years for audio cassettes to finally catch on with the media producers. And many formats, like the MiniDisc, never really catch on.
If your parents aren't around, ask an older friend or sibling what it was like to be an early adopter of DVD technology. Many Slashdotters might think that just because they have Netflix nowadays, it must have always been so, but trust me: finding a good source of rental DVDs was nigh impossible for quite a while. It took years after the commercial availability of DVDs before Blockbuster started renting them, and even then, for years they had a pitiful selection.
So, in summary, while younger Slashdotters might be confused by this, for the rest of us, a ten year wait from the advent of consumer broadband to a viable commercial video distribution model is simply par for the course.
"The market isn't the only factor. Just look at the iTunes Music Store. If it was just about what the market wants, there wouldn't be DRM."
I think this might be better phrased as what the consumers want, as a market includes both producers and consumers. In the digital music market, the producers overwhelmingly want DRM.
It would be great if consumers really were rejecting DRM and instead flocking to DRM-free sites like Magnatune, but the unavoidable fact is that stores with DRM dominate the market.
"Why? GnomeMeeting [gnomemeeting.org] is compatible with Netmeeting on Windows (both use the H.323 protocoll). You can just use that."
H.323 was invented ten years ago. A lot of improvements in video codec technology have been made since then. I'd probably rather boot Windows to run something circa this century rather than subject myself to H.323.
"Basically the record industry is trying to outlaw a technology because the technology could be used to commit a crime."
It is MGM vs. Grokster, not "MGM vs. P2P technology." In fact, the recording industry is partnering with Mashboxx and other permission-based P2P platforms. Many Slashdotters like to slippery-slope this into "the record industry hates technology" when indeed they simply hate technology that allows people to get their stuff without paying for it.
You are, of course, correct that P2P is simply a concept; it's neither good nor evil. I applaud the folks who are setting up BitTorrent sites that provide torrents to content that is being shared with the permission of the creator.
Grokster (and Kazaa and its ilk) is utilizing P2P technology as part of a business model that's based on providing access to pirated material. That is why MGM is suing them.
"It's too bad that P2P has been hit with both the stigma and the legal assault resulting from many people's belief that they're entitled to free professionally produced pop music, and free professionally produced porn. If they want some free information, they should make some free information. If they think free music would be cool, they should make some free music. If they think free porn is cool, they could post nude pictures of themselves on their blog."
" They seem to be lumping together the technology used to produce P2P software, and the businesses that use P2P to make profit."
That's no surprise; Slashdotters blur this line all the time. Whenever you see MGM vs. Grokster, the MPAA vs. Lokitorrent, or another clear case of a rightsholder going after somebody who's in the business of providing access to pirated content, plenty of Slashdotters will slippery-slope this into a "rightsholders vs. P2P as a concept" issue.
This appears to be unique to Slashdot. Whenever I hear of somebody being busted for producing child pornography, I don't see anybody trying to claim that it's an attack on the medium of photography itself, or the technology of hitting a CCD sensor. But perhaps I'm not looking in the right places!
"What do the "business models" have to do with this?"
I think you answered your question in your next statement:
"There are file sharing clients out there that are entirely free and have no company behind them to have a "business model". Not everybody's selling something."
You put your finger on it -- just as some file sharing clients have no company behind them, there are many that do. Kazaa is the most notorious example of this. Its founders set it up because they rightfully understood that there's big money in providing easy access to pirated material, and it has made them millionaires.
I have little sympathy for companies like Sharman, whose executives deny that their business model is providing access to pirated content in a move that would make tobacco executives proud. BitTorrent is an example of another approach -- it's much more similar to a neutral client like an FTP application.
Understanding how "business model" applies to a company like Sharman vs. the BitTorrent protocol is vital to understanding why this case is going to the supreme court.
"A DVD has a retail value of about $20, that means you can reproduce or distribute 50 movies in a 180 days period (or 100 movies a year) before being "criminally infrigning". That's quite a lot, not your average file-sharer."
I don't have any valid data to back it up, but that doesn't seem too out-of-the-ordinary to me. I know guys who have 10, 15 DVDs in their share directories -- not stuff they've personally ripped, but stuff they've collected via P2P. Fifty downloads across all those titles in six months isn't unreasonable in my opinion.
"And the point would still be valid. A life is worth more than every movie ever made; any punishment for copyright violation that includes jail time is out of proportion."
Just out of curiosity: if my habit were defauding senior citizens out of their money, and I stole $10,000 from your grandmother, would you argue against putting me in jail? Would your argument be that a human life is worth more than $10,000, or $50,000, or $100,000 or however much I stole overall?
" A prison sentence for copyright infrigement? Are we losing the sense of proportion here? What about murderers? Oh right, they also get prison sentences."
Plenty of non-violent crimes carry prison sentences. For example, you can go to jail for embezzling $10,000 from your employer, even if that employer has a squillion dollars in the bank and you embezzled the money over a five year period (in short, if it's a "victimless crime" on the level that many Slashdotters consider copyright violation to be).
"He was sharing "a film" as in one film, and can get jail for that? I hope no one will ever tell on me for what I and everyone else did when we were kids; copying each other's music tapes and CDs."
Presuming you live in the USA, if you made 100 copies of one CD and then traded them, then yes, you may have crossed into the territory of criminal infringement.
Sharing tapes and CDs with one or two friends would likely fall into the "fair use" safe zone in the extremely improbable event that you were to be hauled into court for doing so -- heck, Apple's iTunes Music Store allows you to share your tracks on five PCs at once and burn seven copies of each playlist. Putting music into a P2P share directory so that millions of people have the opportunity to download it is an entirely different animal, however, and calling random unknown P2P users your "friends" is probably not an adequate defense.
" I don't know about everyone else, but copyright violations seem like they should ONLY be civil."
Agreed. I would feel much more comfortable pirating movies and music if I knew that at worst, I'd just have to pay a fine.
"This criminal prosecution is just taken to far: congress was even attempting to pass a bill that would make copyright violation a criminal offense in the US! (I dont think it passed though..)"
I'm sure you've watched a few DVDs in your day. The "FBI" in that bright red warning at the beginning of the DVD does not stand for "federal boobie inspector." Criminal copyright infringement has been around in the US for ages, and about ten years ago, the law was stiffened so that you don't even need to take cash payment for pirated material in order to enter the realm of criminal violations. If you like, you can read the relevant portion of the law.
I didn't get the feeling from the article that Apple's decision to not pursue criminal charges was part of an agreement or settlement. Did you? Either way, that's not what I meant to imply at all. My wild-ass guess is that they tabled the notion rather quickly because it simply would not have been good PR.
You're 100% correct that breach of contract is a tort, but I believe Apple might have had grounds to file criminal charges under 506(a)(2). I think Tiger has a retail value of about $100, so it's pretty easy to hit that $1K mark.
"They're not customers if they're breaking copyright and not paying for copies."
Agreed 100%. However, whenever the subject of lawsuits comes up, the standard Slashbot response is "what kind of business sues its own customers?". And for the subject at hand -- stripping DRM from iTMS-purchased music -- it opens up the possibility for Apple's own customers to break copyright law much more easily.
"You can't, however if you suspect me of breaking the law on your copyright sue me. Innocent until proven guilty my friend."
Stick around long enough and you'll see that the so-called "sue your customers" tactic ain't such a hot concept here on Slashdot, either.
"I pay a levy on all my blank media to prop up the dying recording giants."
That Canadian levy primarily goes to songwriters (75%) and performers (13.7%). You're correct that the bulk of it goes to the "giants" of the songwriting profession who write the most popular songs (I don't know which Canadian songwriters are big right now, so I can't give any examples) but I'm not sure what you mean about "dying." Even if the record industry goes away tomorrow (ye olde "dying business model"), I think there will still be songwriters and performers that will do better than others based on talent, good looks or just plain luck.
That's the bottom line... do you think your customers are trying to steal from you or do you trust them?"
And at the same time, whenever the iTMS DRM is discussed, a common Slashdotter claim is "it sucks because it prevents me from burning more than seven copies of the same playlist."
DRM is here because the honor system, by and large, doesn't work for shit on the Internet.
"Creativity has been stifled by the labels' continuing drive towards commercialization. We have "artists" like Gwen Stefani releasing cover after cover, first covering Talk Talk's It's My Life then covering If I Were A Rich Man from Fiddler on the Roof, and both covers are atrocious. These are examples of an industry which is creatively bankrupt and where profit is the bottom line."
90% of commercially released music has always been crap. Some younger Slashdotters may think that they're the first people to discover this, or that it's only in the 21st century that music has become awful. This is the power of nostalgia in action.
"The Internet has rendered traditional music labels obsolete, they're aware of this, and they're fighting their eventual downfall tooth and nail. They will lose."
I've seen this claim a lot over the past several years, since the days of the original Napster. The Internet is going to put the traditional record labels out of business, yet Apple and the record labels have sold tens of millions of tracks online, while "new model" companies like Magnatune are struggling to find an audience. It appears that the traditional record companies get this Internet thing just fine.
But as I was saying, the "imminent death of the record industry" prediction has been going around for a while, but I rarely see somebody actually put a timeline to it. What's your personal estimate of when the record industry will breathe its last? No right or wrong answers, of course... I'm just interested in your estimate.
"Eventually the industry will have to come to terms with this fact and the fact that their distribution model is antequated and obsolete. We need people to continue proving DRM is an unsound technology so eventually they give up on it entirely."
This sounds a bit tautological. A small group of people keep working hard to break DRM to prove that DRM is unworkable, yet meanwhile, millions of consumers are gobbling up DRM-laden tracks. iTunes' success has been nothing short of phenomenal. It is neither "antiquated" nor "obsolete" by any rational standard. To be fair, you've made it clear that you'd rather that iTunes didn't use DRM, but choosing "antiquated" and "obsolete" to describe it is tilting at windmills. If you know of a better way to do it, why not start your own music distribution company? If you're right, you could be bigger than iTunes. That is true innovation. Don't try to crash the party -- throw your own.
"The problem with DRM is that even if it is "innocuous", it still restricts what I can do with something that I purchased. If I spend $0.99 for a song, I want to be able to be able to listen to it from any of the computers I use or in the car (all legal uses) without having to jump through hoops. Now, I have the technical knowledge to work around the DRM, but one shouldn't need to be technically savy just to fairly use a purchase."
Your points are valid in a general sense, but I'm not sure how they relate to iTunes. Have you used it? Burning all the CDs I've wanted has been hoop-free, and the first time I want to listen to my music collection on a different PC, I'm asked to enter my password. Quite painless. Several years ago when online music sales were in their infancy, there were som pretty wretched DRM systems, but Apple has gotten it right.
"You don't think that being prohibited from sharing a song with a family member is a problem? Isn't that the quintessential "fair use"?"
You're 100% correct. You should not buy from a store whose DRM is so restrictive that you cannot share with family members.
Do give iTMS a try if you haven't. They let you share music on up to five computers at once. In my case, that's more than enough to share with all my family members who listen to music on their PCs, plus a few of my friends. If you have more than four other family members who listen to music on their PCs, they should just buy their own damn music -- it's only a buck a track.
"What if the artist decides he doesn't want his album distributed (e.g. Beach Boys' original Smile, Prince's Black Album), but you want other people to hear it?"
I would respect the right of the artist to make that choice. Musicians are not second-class citizens whose rights we should violate at will.
As for the rest of your concerns, if they're a serious issue, then I'd suggest not using iTMS, and trying a site that offers DRM-free music, or buying CDs. The choice is yours as a consumer. Violating the iTMS terms of use is, as others have put it, hypocritical.
Slashdot Mirror
"NO IT'S NOT. The difference is we Canadians PAY the CRIA for EVERY SINGLE BLANK DISK WE BUY, WHETHER IT IS TO BE USED FOR MUSIC OR NOT."
The money goes to the CPCC, a non-profit agency. Most of the money is redistributed to songwriters and recording artists. Some goes to record labels. None goes directly to the CRIA.
"That's why we have the right to share music."
Not correct. Canadian law currently says that you can download copyrighted music in some cases, and there is a levy paid to the CPCC on recordable media. These are independent facts. You do not have a socialized music industry. Your health care system works somewhat like this (you can get free health care because you pay taxes) but there's no similar corelation in the music industry.
You're not the first Canadian to come to this incorrect conclusion, however.
"I guess that "pirate tax" on all recordable media is redundant and can be removed now? It was there to "protect the artists," but now the lawyers on the hunt trying to "protect the artists.""
Doubtful. Here in the US we pay all sorts of taxes and levies and it doesn't get us any protection. For example, local and national police forces are paid for through taxes, yet paying the taxes doesn't prevent us from being arrested if we do something naughty.
Lots of Canadians think that downloading is legal because there is a levy on blank media. While this is a reasonable assumption (I believe that they think this because their health care system works in such a manner), it's not correct -- Canada doesn't have a socialized music industry. The facts that there is a levy on recordable media, and that downloading of copyrighted materials against the copyright holders' will is currently allowable in some circumstances, are not corelated.
"How, precisely, is it "promoting the progress of science and useful arts" to have copyright extended indefinitely? Note also that it says "authors" - not "decendants of authors" or "corporations of which the author is affiliated.""
Now if it weren't for the 14th Amendment, the Santa Clara decision, etc., you'd be on to something. The sad truth is that corporations have been people since 1889. The upside, of course, is that the 14th Amendment made African-American males people as well.
"The thing is, if any movie producers/directors decided to distribute their works over the internet, they might not be able(allowed) to go on big screen anymore."
On the contrary; many directors have gotten their start by creating films which they've distributed online. My grandmother was in one such film that was an online sensation for a time (if you never caught it... trust me, you probably wouldn't want to see your own grandmother in it) and which opened a few (small) doors for the director. And, a few years back, BMW recruited Joe Carnahan, Tony Scott, and John Woo to direct some short films that were distributed on BMW's web site. This didn't hurt their careers. Online film distribution is a huge industry, and has been for quite a while. Just spend a few minutes browsing ifilm and you'll see what I mean.
"You sir, are a jackass."
Thanks for your well-reasoned rebuttal. You're correct that there is a difference between a jump between physical mediums and a jump from physical to online delivery, but the common element is consumer acceptance. Slashdotters are the early adopters here, and face it, we don't represent the consumer market as a whole. We're way ahead of it. I think we'll start seeing some changes soon; the Media Center PC push will (if Microsoft has their way) get PCs into living rooms in unprecedented numbers. Once that happens, the potential market for Internet TV/movie downloads might hit critical mass.
By the way, this is one of those general concepts of technology curves and consumer behavior that's not limited to tunes and movies. The first GPS bird was launched in 1978, and only today is it finally becoming easy to find a $20K car with GPS navigation as an option.
Either way, if you find yourself saying "I'm smart and I can't believe everybody else is so stupid," it's time to do one of two things: apply a healthy dose of Occam's Razor, or go into business for yourself. If you think you're right and the media companies are wrong, and there's enough of a market for pay-per-download films/TV to make it worthwhile, write that business plan, talk to some investors, and do it. That's how I became wealthy, and you can do it, too.
" I don't understand how media companies can be so far behind on figuring out digital distribution over the internet..."
I've always wondered how posts that start with "I don't understand..." can be modded insightful.
But anyway, it may help your understanding to ask your parents about what it was like to be around during the dawn of the CD. To make a long story short, it took a full ten years for the music industry to fully support it, and for us early adopters, it was hard going. I'm of the understanding that it also took about ten years for audio cassettes to finally catch on with the media producers. And many formats, like the MiniDisc, never really catch on.
If your parents aren't around, ask an older friend or sibling what it was like to be an early adopter of DVD technology. Many Slashdotters might think that just because they have Netflix nowadays, it must have always been so, but trust me: finding a good source of rental DVDs was nigh impossible for quite a while. It took years after the commercial availability of DVDs before Blockbuster started renting them, and even then, for years they had a pitiful selection.
So, in summary, while younger Slashdotters might be confused by this, for the rest of us, a ten year wait from the advent of consumer broadband to a viable commercial video distribution model is simply par for the course.
"The market isn't the only factor. Just look at the iTunes Music Store. If it was just about what the market wants, there wouldn't be DRM."
I think this might be better phrased as what the consumers want, as a market includes both producers and consumers. In the digital music market, the producers overwhelmingly want DRM.
It would be great if consumers really were rejecting DRM and instead flocking to DRM-free sites like Magnatune, but the unavoidable fact is that stores with DRM dominate the market.
"Why? GnomeMeeting [gnomemeeting.org] is compatible with Netmeeting on Windows (both use the H.323 protocoll). You can just use that."
H.323 was invented ten years ago. A lot of improvements in video codec technology have been made since then. I'd probably rather boot Windows to run something circa this century rather than subject myself to H.323.
"Basically the record industry is trying to outlaw a technology because the technology could be used to commit a crime."
It is MGM vs. Grokster, not "MGM vs. P2P technology." In fact, the recording industry is partnering with Mashboxx and other permission-based P2P platforms. Many Slashdotters like to slippery-slope this into "the record industry hates technology" when indeed they simply hate technology that allows people to get their stuff without paying for it.
You are, of course, correct that P2P is simply a concept; it's neither good nor evil. I applaud the folks who are setting up BitTorrent sites that provide torrents to content that is being shared with the permission of the creator.
Grokster (and Kazaa and its ilk) is utilizing P2P technology as part of a business model that's based on providing access to pirated material. That is why MGM is suing them.
"It's too bad that P2P has been hit with both the stigma and the legal assault resulting from many people's belief that they're entitled to free professionally produced pop music, and free professionally produced porn. If they want some free information, they should make some free information. If they think free music would be cool, they should make some free music. If they think free porn is cool, they could post nude pictures of themselves on their blog."
Very well put.
"Note to the RIAA/MPAA: profit from P2P, instead of trying to fight it."
Great idea, but I think they're a bit ahead of you:
Mashboxx and Pay P2P
Grokster, Sony, BMG to do legit P2P service?
Bertelsmann to offer P2P download platform
And while not strictly P2P:
Universal Music Debuts Digital-Only Label
" They seem to be lumping together the technology used to produce P2P software, and the businesses that use P2P to make profit."
That's no surprise; Slashdotters blur this line all the time. Whenever you see MGM vs. Grokster, the MPAA vs. Lokitorrent, or another clear case of a rightsholder going after somebody who's in the business of providing access to pirated content, plenty of Slashdotters will slippery-slope this into a "rightsholders vs. P2P as a concept" issue.
This appears to be unique to Slashdot. Whenever I hear of somebody being busted for producing child pornography, I don't see anybody trying to claim that it's an attack on the medium of photography itself, or the technology of hitting a CCD sensor. But perhaps I'm not looking in the right places!
You wrote:
"What do the "business models" have to do with this?"
I think you answered your question in your next statement:
"There are file sharing clients out there that are entirely free and have no company behind them to have a "business model". Not everybody's selling something."
You put your finger on it -- just as some file sharing clients have no company behind them, there are many that do. Kazaa is the most notorious example of this. Its founders set it up because they rightfully understood that there's big money in providing easy access to pirated material, and it has made them millionaires.
I have little sympathy for companies like Sharman, whose executives deny that their business model is providing access to pirated content in a move that would make tobacco executives proud. BitTorrent is an example of another approach -- it's much more similar to a neutral client like an FTP application.
Understanding how "business model" applies to a company like Sharman vs. the BitTorrent protocol is vital to understanding why this case is going to the supreme court.
"A DVD has a retail value of about $20, that means you can reproduce or distribute 50 movies in a 180 days period (or 100 movies a year) before being "criminally infrigning". That's quite a lot, not your average file-sharer."
I don't have any valid data to back it up, but that doesn't seem too out-of-the-ordinary to me. I know guys who have 10, 15 DVDs in their share directories -- not stuff they've personally ripped, but stuff they've collected via P2P. Fifty downloads across all those titles in six months isn't unreasonable in my opinion.
"And the point would still be valid. A life is worth more than every movie ever made; any punishment for copyright violation that includes jail time is out of proportion."
Just out of curiosity: if my habit were defauding senior citizens out of their money, and I stole $10,000 from your grandmother, would you argue against putting me in jail? Would your argument be that a human life is worth more than $10,000, or $50,000, or $100,000 or however much I stole overall?
" A prison sentence for copyright infrigement? Are we losing the sense of proportion here? What about murderers? Oh right, they also get prison sentences."
Plenty of non-violent crimes carry prison sentences. For example, you can go to jail for embezzling $10,000 from your employer, even if that employer has a squillion dollars in the bank and you embezzled the money over a five year period (in short, if it's a "victimless crime" on the level that many Slashdotters consider copyright violation to be).
"He was sharing "a film" as in one film, and can get jail for that? I hope no one will ever tell on me for what I and everyone else did when we were kids; copying each other's music tapes and CDs."
Presuming you live in the USA, if you made 100 copies of one CD and then traded them, then yes, you may have crossed into the territory of criminal infringement.
Sharing tapes and CDs with one or two friends would likely fall into the "fair use" safe zone in the extremely improbable event that you were to be hauled into court for doing so -- heck, Apple's iTunes Music Store allows you to share your tracks on five PCs at once and burn seven copies of each playlist. Putting music into a P2P share directory so that millions of people have the opportunity to download it is an entirely different animal, however, and calling random unknown P2P users your "friends" is probably not an adequate defense.
" I don't know about everyone else, but copyright violations seem like they should ONLY be civil."
Agreed. I would feel much more comfortable pirating movies and music if I knew that at worst, I'd just have to pay a fine.
"This criminal prosecution is just taken to far: congress was even attempting to pass a bill that would make copyright violation a criminal offense in the US! (I dont think it passed though..)"
I'm sure you've watched a few DVDs in your day. The "FBI" in that bright red warning at the beginning of the DVD does not stand for "federal boobie inspector." Criminal copyright infringement has been around in the US for ages, and about ten years ago, the law was stiffened so that you don't even need to take cash payment for pirated material in order to enter the realm of criminal violations. If you like, you can read the relevant portion of the law.
I didn't get the feeling from the article that Apple's decision to not pursue criminal charges was part of an agreement or settlement. Did you? Either way, that's not what I meant to imply at all. My wild-ass guess is that they tabled the notion rather quickly because it simply would not have been good PR.
You're 100% correct that breach of contract is a tort, but I believe Apple might have had grounds to file criminal charges under 506(a)(2). I think Tiger has a retail value of about $100, so it's pretty easy to hit that $1K mark.
Exactly -- you have nailed it. They do not wish to send students to jail, so they settled, rather than pressing criminal charges.
"They're not customers if they're breaking copyright and not paying for copies."
Agreed 100%. However, whenever the subject of lawsuits comes up, the standard Slashbot response is "what kind of business sues its own customers?". And for the subject at hand -- stripping DRM from iTMS-purchased music -- it opens up the possibility for Apple's own customers to break copyright law much more easily.
"Tongue-in-cheek sarcastic reference."
Sorry, it must have gone over my head!
"You can't, however if you suspect me of breaking the law on your copyright sue me. Innocent until proven guilty my friend."
Stick around long enough and you'll see that the so-called "sue your customers" tactic ain't such a hot concept here on Slashdot, either.
"I pay a levy on all my blank media to prop up the dying recording giants."
That Canadian levy primarily goes to songwriters (75%) and performers (13.7%). You're correct that the bulk of it goes to the "giants" of the songwriting profession who write the most popular songs (I don't know which Canadian songwriters are big right now, so I can't give any examples) but I'm not sure what you mean about "dying." Even if the record industry goes away tomorrow (ye olde "dying business model"), I think there will still be songwriters and performers that will do better than others based on talent, good looks or just plain luck.
That's the bottom line... do you think your customers are trying to steal from you or do you trust them?"
And at the same time, whenever the iTMS DRM is discussed, a common Slashdotter claim is "it sucks because it prevents me from burning more than seven copies of the same playlist."
DRM is here because the honor system, by and large, doesn't work for shit on the Internet.
"Creativity has been stifled by the labels' continuing drive towards commercialization. We have "artists" like Gwen Stefani releasing cover after cover, first covering Talk Talk's It's My Life then covering If I Were A Rich Man from Fiddler on the Roof, and both covers are atrocious. These are examples of an industry which is creatively bankrupt and where profit is the bottom line."
90% of commercially released music has always been crap. Some younger Slashdotters may think that they're the first people to discover this, or that it's only in the 21st century that music has become awful. This is the power of nostalgia in action.
"The Internet has rendered traditional music labels obsolete, they're aware of this, and they're fighting their eventual downfall tooth and nail. They will lose."
I've seen this claim a lot over the past several years, since the days of the original Napster. The Internet is going to put the traditional record labels out of business, yet Apple and the record labels have sold tens of millions of tracks online, while "new model" companies like Magnatune are struggling to find an audience. It appears that the traditional record companies get this Internet thing just fine.
But as I was saying, the "imminent death of the record industry" prediction has been going around for a while, but I rarely see somebody actually put a timeline to it. What's your personal estimate of when the record industry will breathe its last? No right or wrong answers, of course... I'm just interested in your estimate.
"Eventually the industry will have to come to terms with this fact and the fact that their distribution model is antequated and obsolete. We need people to continue proving DRM is an unsound technology so eventually they give up on it entirely."
This sounds a bit tautological. A small group of people keep working hard to break DRM to prove that DRM is unworkable, yet meanwhile, millions of consumers are gobbling up DRM-laden tracks. iTunes' success has been nothing short of phenomenal. It is neither "antiquated" nor "obsolete" by any rational standard. To be fair, you've made it clear that you'd rather that iTunes didn't use DRM, but choosing "antiquated" and "obsolete" to describe it is tilting at windmills. If you know of a better way to do it, why not start your own music distribution company? If you're right, you could be bigger than iTunes. That is true innovation. Don't try to crash the party -- throw your own.
"The problem with DRM is that even if it is "innocuous", it still restricts what I can do with something that I purchased. If I spend $0.99 for a song, I want to be able to be able to listen to it from any of the computers I use or in the car (all legal uses) without having to jump through hoops. Now, I have the technical knowledge to work around the DRM, but one shouldn't need to be technically savy just to fairly use a purchase."
Your points are valid in a general sense, but I'm not sure how they relate to iTunes. Have you used it? Burning all the CDs I've wanted has been hoop-free, and the first time I want to listen to my music collection on a different PC, I'm asked to enter my password. Quite painless. Several years ago when online music sales were in their infancy, there were som pretty wretched DRM systems, but Apple has gotten it right.
"You don't think that being prohibited from sharing a song with a family member is a problem? Isn't that the quintessential "fair use"?"
You're 100% correct. You should not buy from a store whose DRM is so restrictive that you cannot share with family members.
Do give iTMS a try if you haven't. They let you share music on up to five computers at once. In my case, that's more than enough to share with all my family members who listen to music on their PCs, plus a few of my friends. If you have more than four other family members who listen to music on their PCs, they should just buy their own damn music -- it's only a buck a track.
"What if the artist decides he doesn't want his album distributed (e.g. Beach Boys' original Smile, Prince's Black Album), but you want other people to hear it?"
I would respect the right of the artist to make that choice. Musicians are not second-class citizens whose rights we should violate at will.
As for the rest of your concerns, if they're a serious issue, then I'd suggest not using iTMS, and trying a site that offers DRM-free music, or buying CDs. The choice is yours as a consumer. Violating the iTMS terms of use is, as others have put it, hypocritical.