I agree that artists now have a fantastic direct distribution channel to their fans. I think that's what the RIAA really fears most. It's not that artists are going to completely give up working with record companies, publishers, etc...because they do a lot of the grunt work and provide some of the money needed for some projects. That lets the artist do more of what they do best...create music. But now the artist (potentially) has a load more bargaining power with these entities, because though they are a useful way to "outsource" some of the work of the entertainment business, they aren't necessary for the artist any more. He/She can strike out on their own and do all the hard work, or have more options of people/organizations to work with because of this more direct bargaining power.
The RIAA does not want powerful, entrepeneurial artists. They want disposable ones. They're terrified that the pyramid upon which they've built their business model, which worked for so many years, is now turning upside-down.
Right now is a great time for the rise of smaller, more nimble companies to rise up and fill some of the roles of the old guard with the understanding that they are in a faster paced, more competitive environment. They will never have the power of RIAA affiliated companies, but they can certainly make money participating in the parts of the process they are good at.
A single day's work? You clearly don't write much (certainly not songwriting.) Rarely is a song finished in a single day, and rarely did that inspiration strike from a single day of pondering. I write everyday, yes, but not all of it is usable material. Some of it gets kept, some re-used and some thrown away. It does not come out of thin air, but hard work and crafting.
There is a business model for getting paid up front. It's called "work-for-hire" and it pays terribly. Without copyright protection of my work, the person I sold the song now gets to exploit it in any way they see fit. Perhaps they're using it for advertising, or porn, or promoting something they can make money off of. They get to then use the material in perpetuity to make money, whereas I have no rights to it whatsoever. All I can do is go back to the drawing board and create another work-for-hire (that doesn't sound too much like the previous one) to sell for a mediocre price (whatever the market will bear) to someone else.
Most music libraries are built from works-for-hire. Don't know if you've ever checked them out, but they are largely mediocre background music. Not stuff you'd really want to listen to on your MP3 player.
It's funny how the DRM argument is shifting from the "Evil of the RIAA" to the "Greed of the Writers." Most of us aren't making that much on our work. 4 cents a song on every album sold is not equivalent to "a day's work." Particularly not when you take into account publishing and promoting. And the internet is so flooded with artists, and the field so competitive, one has to do something to get noticed...not a costless endeavor.
I'll tell you why. Scarcity. A loaf of bread is easy to make. The resources to make it are cheap, and with some practice, and the right equipment and attention you can make some damn good bread. The better your bread, the more you can charge for it.
Quality writing, however, is a little harder to come by. If it were ubiquitous, my argument would probably be moot...but in a world where suddenly everyone's a writer, myself and many others are willing to pay for something of higher quality (artistically, journalistically, scientifically, etc...) because it is more appealing, more comprehensible and/or more factual. It's a difficult skill to write well and takes a lot of practice and perseverence and a fair amount of failing at it till you get it right. If this were not the case, everyone would be a good writer by now.
So the poster a few posts up is right. Writing isn't like the baker down the street. Frankly, it's harder. (No offense to the myriad of bakers on Slashdot.) Better bread deserves due compensation.
The day they invent replicators, will we all be paying merely for the raw material that bread and cars are made from (and the machines themselves?), or will you perhaps start thinking you deserve to be making a little extra cash in exchange for your recipe/car design/widget architecture that's not the latest craze sweeping the planet? "No, it'll be free just for the satisfaction of sharing my art." Well, unless you're producing raw carbon/silicon/iron, etc...you'll have to pay for it for your replicator to produce anything, and that money's gotta come from somewhere.
Um...have you considered the AppleTV? I know we're in a world where we expect all toys to do all things, I do think it's what it was designed for.
Is it fair? No, probably not. But it's nothing that hasn't been exploited in the marketplace for many years. When it's proprietary, that's the price you pay. On the other hand, Apple is generally stable, reliable and consistent compared to Windows based architectures. If you want configurability, build a PC. If you want to turn it on and have it just work, buy Apple. Just be sure to know what you're getting into before you do it.
When someone comes up with a solution whereby the artist and the constituent people who worked hard on creating the material can still be paid for their efforts (in exchange for someone's enjoyment), maybe then we can entertain the "(all) DRM is evil" proposition.
This is a classic Nietscheian observation at work here: us against them. (They are evil and we are good.) This use of the word evil is a gross oversimplification of the difficulties DRM is an attempt to solve. If you want to argue that the RIAA leverages the concept of DRM in the pursuit of unnecessarily excessive profits for it's constituents, I couldn't agree more, but to simply say that "DRM is evil" is to state something that hasn't been thought through.
And just remember, for every Mac Fanboy out there, there's a Mac Hater more than willing to fan the flames.
It's not really the same as wanting to buy your car and then getting a digital photo of it instead. It's more akin to buying the right to drive to your car. It's what you can do with it, not the object itself, that is of value (the Taoist notion comes to mind: It's not the bowl that is useful but the space inside where you can put your food.) I don't own the car proper, but I am allowed to drive it per whatever our agreement was. If at the end of the deal, I am no longer able to drive your car because that's what the contract states, then that's what legally should happen. If I don't like that idea, I should find someone with a better agreement. Barring monopolies, the free market should sort this one out just fine, but only if enough people actually give a damn.
This is the crux of the whole argument about "intellectual" property. I'm not suggesting "pay per play", but certainly would like to see that anyone who plans to put the song in their library pay for it.
Also, someone in the process does have to continue putting work into the song in order to continue selling it. Publicity, promotion, publishing, etc... all add up to time spent not making money doing something else. Otherwise, in a world of fast moving information, the song may not have much of a shelf life, or a listener base. Some of my favorite songs I discovered not from what my friends were listening to, but because of clever promotion on behalf of the artist/publisher/record company.
I would be curious to know what a world without "intellectual property rights" would look like economically, as it seems somewhat complicated to contemplate. It's possible that there would still be high quality recordings of high quality music out there, though I'm not certain that would be the case. That isn't necessarily a bad thing but it is different, and different is scary to people who currently make their living off the status quo. Change can often take a lot of work, and often invalidates the lot of work that went into learning how to function in the current system.
1) Songwriters and composers everywhere thank you for acknowledging that the creation of the material is in fact not work at all (certainly not work that might deserve compensation of any kind.) Their material is in fact floating freely in the air to be snatched up by whatever live act is quick enough to grab it. Meanwhile oil (not truly produced but extracted), automobiles and computers are all products that involved actual labor and are much more crucial to our society, and so deserve to see the money.
2) The love of doing it is often overtaken by the love of one's self. YouTube is a cheap as free medium by which anyone can show off their latest work. As has always been the case in art, there are occasionally kernels of brilliance to rise out of obscurity, only the easier it is to "produce" free art, the more you have to wade through to find the good stuff.
"Art" has always been about money or status. Always. That's not to say it isn't produced by something visceral within us, but once produced we want to share it...and we'd like to not go hungry doing it.
Because if you break it down, the only jobs that really matter in the world are the ones that provide food, shelter, and health. So why not give everything else away for free.
Inconsistent metaphor, I think. When you buy a newspaper, you only need one...it's dated material...you read it...you're finished with it. Perhaps you leave it where someone else can read it. The end result is, after that day, that paper is (for 99% of readers) not something they are going to reuse.
Downloaded music, however, is going to be subject to repeated listenings potentially throughout the lifetime of the listener/buyer. Digital storage is cheap. Really, though I'm sure there's a few exceptions out there, how many people still have music floating around on hard drives or CDs from the old Napster days? If you liked the music, I'll bet it's still there.
After all, shareware is not really a lucrative way of doing things.
Then perhaps you should be allowed to acquire another copy of the download. After all, it's digital, and an additional copy in your hands is not likely to be a threat to the profits of the company you downloaded it from.
I think I have the solution. Give the company access to your hard drives so they can delete it personally. While we're at it, we can build in a flag in the OS that can indicate if the song has been burned or copied...or maybe just use stronger DRM to ensure that if it's "returned" than it cannot have ever been copied to another machine. Now consumer rights are protected!
For those who claim Wikipedia is too inaccurate and too often the solitary source people use to get their information, don't forget the various news agencies, blogs, and library books from umpteen years ago where they also may be getting their information. Never inaccuracies (or anachronisms) in any of those, no-sir-ree.
"Most of the time Wikipedia varies between mediocre and deeply flawed. Yes there's lots of interesting trivia in there but there are also gaping flaws that the unwary won't pick up on."
There is a gross misperception of live performance...namely that it's so damn easy and lucrative. As is the case with many aspects of this industry, talent is not the sole criteria for quality. Venues could have numerous reason to book or not to book you, and the less they have to pay you, they happier they are. (Try getting money out of them sometime.) Some are better at the game than others but that's my point. Some of us are better writers or players or performers or managers, and if we can't afford to pay other people to pick up the slack where we're lacking, and if we are in a market that's less forgiving when it comes to venues (crappy management perhaps, or maybe an area that doesn't have a lot of venues or potential audience) then you are SOL.
Furthermore, not all music is designed for live performance. A great deal of it is more effective as recorded art, or would take an inordinate number of players to make it work. It still costs money to produce quality material. Some get lucky from time to time, but rarely does someone lay down a record all their material on a 4 track cassette recorder and consistently maintain a fan base. You can do that as a one-off, but audiences are fickle and lose interest quickly.
I'm not saying DRM is the great hope of the artist. I am suggesting that it's an issue that's become very one sided. Napster may have introduced a lot of people to a lot of new music, but a lot of people did not get paid for that music. At that time, especially, the attitude was that it was "free". There wasn't a lot of talk about how they would "pay for the one's they liked", and when it was mentioned, I rarely noticed those records showing up in people's collections because a) they already had it on mp3 and b) they were already on to discover what other music they could horde. This is why modern DRM came about to begin with.
It's possible the climate's changed since that late 90s / early 00s, and that people mean it this time about buying the music they want to support, but proving that to the industry is going to be a hard fight.
This started with people acquiring content they didn't pay for. People can argue all they want that it started with corporate greed, but if people weren't paying the prices then the major labels and movie studios couldn't keep those prices that high. This is about the consumer, and they know it. They treat the consumer as if they don't trust them because of things like napster. What we should have done was to just boycott them outright and make a stand until they produced better priced media. Well, the cat's out of the bag, now. The supply of a single "product" is upwards to infinite, but the supply of the product type may not be.
Fair enough (re: the lighting tech, etc...), but how about the artist. I only say this because I'm a songwriter and if people don't buy, I don't get paid. Metallica may be set for life, but it's a lot of work writing, publishing, recording, producing, promoting, etc, and takes up a lot of time. That cost can be redistributed to other people but only a) if a label picks you up and is willing to front some costs or b) if it comes out of my pocket. When it comes out of my pocket, it's a mighty big gamble, and if there's no chance of return on my efforts, then why bother to produce a good quality song/recording when I could be paying the rent and eating?
You can't seriously think that's the conclusion large corporate entities are going to come to? This will only prove their point that DRM is a fiscal necessity for them to survive. Now, there are hucksters out there at the top of this DRM chain, for certain, but below them are usually a lot of hard working people creating, developing, producing and distributing these works. How will they get paid? You think the hucksters on top give a damn about those people getting paid? No. You and I should care, because otherwise the flow of media comes to a crawl of the lowest common denominator.
You can do art for free for a while, but at some point you have to pay rent and put food on the table.
Give me a better solution than DRM to accomplish this, and I'll gladly listen. I'd prefer something else over restrictions on accessing content I'm paying for.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mohandas Gandhi
If you don't fight for what you think is important, then you might as well lay down and die. Other people will always make your decisions and you will never find contentment.
No-one ever gets everything they want. But some is better than none.
And reality is malleable. At least insofar as "the system" goes.
Agreed. And if you vote with your wallet, it makes DRM less important, because the people who deserve to be getting the money for their work will get it instead of those organizations and corporations dedicated to strongarming your money from you. If you just want easy and free access to media you have actually paid for, then be selective about what you pay for, and tell other people to do the same.
Don't go nabbing it for free with claims of "well they make enough money as it is and it should be free anyway", because if they have any way of measuring how often that happens, it only bolsters their case that there is a demand for something that they had some hand in producing or marketing. Vote with your wallet, or else we'll just have more of the same.
Interesting. Would that right still be an issue, though, given that Apple isn't forcing anyone to use their system of "purchase and play", given that one could purchase their music elsewhere? I mean, why buy from iTunes if you don't have an iPod? Multiple sources still exist where one could purchase their music.
Not sure I see the connection between "life" and "statutory right to listen to music you've purchased" though.
And what luck for Arthur Dent. His experience could have been significantly worse than it was.
There's nothing preventing you or anyone else from putting out music without Apple's DRM, either. In fact, if Apple had exclusive distribution rights to the music being offered, I could see the argument. Much of the music that's distributed via iTunes, however, is a) available through other legal and competitive outlets (just because they aren't the leading competitor doesn't make them non-competitive) and b) able to be converted into other formats (which, granted, requires a some minor effort and resources, but is consistent and relatively fair considering the point of DRM should be to prevent redistribution without appropriate compensation for the creator of the work.)
Regarding the iPod itself, it is capable of playing multiple formats without Apple's DRM in addition to those "protected" tracks purchased via iTunes. Compared to some systems, I think Apple's is a pretty decent comprimise between the music listener/consumer and the writer/artist/publisher/engineer/producer/label that assembles the work. It bears keeping in mind that though art does not necessarily have to follow the money, art and commerce have a long history, allowing the entertainers/content providers to produce more (and theoretically higher quality) work.
I don't consider Apple's decision to maintain a proprietary DRM as anti-competitive because Apple isn't selling DRM. They are (via iTunes) selling music. If Norway considers Apple's unwillingness to license it's technology as anti-competitive then Norway doesn't understand what market it's trying to protect. Anti-competitive licensing of DRM would probably (I'm no lawyer) be an issue of patents, which I don't think has anything to do with what they are trying to accomplish. (Check me if I'm wrong.)
Also, how would a DVD Jon-style effort to crack iTunes DRM be considered legitimate use of reasonable force in the exercise of one's statutory rights?
Except songs are not fuel. You cannot burn your gas to disc and listen to it on a CD player. Nor can you re-rip into another format that would then have the correct viscosity to travel down a different bizarrely shaped nozzle.
Too many people seem to think music grows on trees...or comes gushing magically out of the ground. Someone should get paid for their work (work that entertains you) and frankly they weren't getting paid during the glory days of napster and the like...before DRM. If people were genuinely interested in the welfare of the artists cut, there wouldn't be any DRM. That goes as much for the big labels and content providers as to the rest of us.
I know this is slashdot, where genuine solutions are rare and griping reigns supreme, but if anyone has a better idea for ensuring a fair transaction, I'll just be sitting here...staring at the prompt.
Oh...and though it wasn't stated in this particular post, I have to add: iTunes does not constitute a monopoly.
"In economics, a monopoly...is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods."
Nobody said you couldn't buy your music, or your players, somewhere else.
If you want to legally purchase downloadable music, no-one is forcing you to use iTunes. There are many other services. Consequently no-one is forcing you to use an iPod to listen to said music.
Should auto manufacturers be outlawed because they use parts that are specific to their cars?
Bush and Co. did lie about weapons of mass destruction. They desired a certain outcome and applied pressure on intelligence agencies to provide them with results more favorable to those outcomes. There was plenty of analysis suggesting we should take more time researching where Saddam's WMDs had gone, and very little evidence to suggest that he would have been capable of using them to much effect in the near term (particularly compared to Iran or North Korea) if he had them. He was the easier target to bring down, and Bush and Co. were relying on this to start a cascade effect within the "Axis of Evil."
We crushed Saddam's military ability in the Gulf War and continued to suppress it for over a decade. Western (primarily American) dominance of the Iraqi skies allowed us to maintain excellent intelligence on Iraqi troop strength and capabilities. Many in the Iraqi military knew what they were up against even in the Gulf War and surrendered quickly - not just because of coalition military might, but because they sincerely hoped this would be the end to Saddam's regime...one that kept them in check by way of fear.
Saddam, brutal and paranoid, was no idiot. No chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were used to protect Saddam's regime in any kind of last ditch effort. They were not found because they were not there. The man postured to maintain a sense of fear and "respect" from his people and his neighbors. If he did not, he could not have remained in power for as long as he did. Frankly, we called his bluff, but to suggest that Bush didn't fabricate a scenario to get us involved in Iraq would be severely "misunderestimating" what information we did and did not actually have about Saddam's power, methods and intents. Even if we discount and argue all of these points, he still lied about the relationship between Al Quaeda and the Baath party (contrary to all official analysis), thus incorrectly connecting Saddam Hussein directly to the events of September 11th.
Politics is a far more nuanced and delicate art than many people presume. Bush and company have, from the start, counted on the notion of "shoot first, ask questions later." Cheney himself famously said, "Deficits don't matter" which is a great barometer of his, and the rest of the administration's political methodology. See Defense Planning Guidance for more information on what kind of world this administration has been trying to create since before it was this administration.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that artists now have a fantastic direct distribution channel to their fans. I think that's what the RIAA really fears most. It's not that artists are going to completely give up working with record companies, publishers, etc...because they do a lot of the grunt work and provide some of the money needed for some projects. That lets the artist do more of what they do best...create music. But now the artist (potentially) has a load more bargaining power with these entities, because though they are a useful way to "outsource" some of the work of the entertainment business, they aren't necessary for the artist any more. He/She can strike out on their own and do all the hard work, or have more options of people/organizations to work with because of this more direct bargaining power.
The RIAA does not want powerful, entrepeneurial artists. They want disposable ones. They're terrified that the pyramid upon which they've built their business model, which worked for so many years, is now turning upside-down.
Right now is a great time for the rise of smaller, more nimble companies to rise up and fill some of the roles of the old guard with the understanding that they are in a faster paced, more competitive environment. They will never have the power of RIAA affiliated companies, but they can certainly make money participating in the parts of the process they are good at.
A single day's work? You clearly don't write much (certainly not songwriting.) Rarely is a song finished in a single day, and rarely did that inspiration strike from a single day of pondering. I write everyday, yes, but not all of it is usable material. Some of it gets kept, some re-used and some thrown away. It does not come out of thin air, but hard work and crafting.
There is a business model for getting paid up front. It's called "work-for-hire" and it pays terribly. Without copyright protection of my work, the person I sold the song now gets to exploit it in any way they see fit. Perhaps they're using it for advertising, or porn, or promoting something they can make money off of. They get to then use the material in perpetuity to make money, whereas I have no rights to it whatsoever. All I can do is go back to the drawing board and create another work-for-hire (that doesn't sound too much like the previous one) to sell for a mediocre price (whatever the market will bear) to someone else.
Most music libraries are built from works-for-hire. Don't know if you've ever checked them out, but they are largely mediocre background music. Not stuff you'd really want to listen to on your MP3 player.
It's funny how the DRM argument is shifting from the "Evil of the RIAA" to the "Greed of the Writers." Most of us aren't making that much on our work. 4 cents a song on every album sold is not equivalent to "a day's work." Particularly not when you take into account publishing and promoting. And the internet is so flooded with artists, and the field so competitive, one has to do something to get noticed...not a costless endeavor.
I'll tell you why. Scarcity. A loaf of bread is easy to make. The resources to make it are cheap, and with some practice, and the right equipment and attention you can make some damn good bread. The better your bread, the more you can charge for it.
Quality writing, however, is a little harder to come by. If it were ubiquitous, my argument would probably be moot...but in a world where suddenly everyone's a writer, myself and many others are willing to pay for something of higher quality (artistically, journalistically, scientifically, etc...) because it is more appealing, more comprehensible and/or more factual. It's a difficult skill to write well and takes a lot of practice and perseverence and a fair amount of failing at it till you get it right. If this were not the case, everyone would be a good writer by now.
So the poster a few posts up is right. Writing isn't like the baker down the street. Frankly, it's harder. (No offense to the myriad of bakers on Slashdot.) Better bread deserves due compensation.
The day they invent replicators, will we all be paying merely for the raw material that bread and cars are made from (and the machines themselves?), or will you perhaps start thinking you deserve to be making a little extra cash in exchange for your recipe/car design/widget architecture that's not the latest craze sweeping the planet? "No, it'll be free just for the satisfaction of sharing my art." Well, unless you're producing raw carbon/silicon/iron, etc...you'll have to pay for it for your replicator to produce anything, and that money's gotta come from somewhere.
Um...have you considered the AppleTV? I know we're in a world where we expect all toys to do all things, I do think it's what it was designed for.
Is it fair? No, probably not. But it's nothing that hasn't been exploited in the marketplace for many years. When it's proprietary, that's the price you pay. On the other hand, Apple is generally stable, reliable and consistent compared to Windows based architectures. If you want configurability, build a PC. If you want to turn it on and have it just work, buy Apple. Just be sure to know what you're getting into before you do it.
When someone comes up with a solution whereby the artist and the constituent people who worked hard on creating the material can still be paid for their efforts (in exchange for someone's enjoyment), maybe then we can entertain the "(all) DRM is evil" proposition.
This is a classic Nietscheian observation at work here: us against them. (They are evil and we are good.) This use of the word evil is a gross oversimplification of the difficulties DRM is an attempt to solve. If you want to argue that the RIAA leverages the concept of DRM in the pursuit of unnecessarily excessive profits for it's constituents, I couldn't agree more, but to simply say that "DRM is evil" is to state something that hasn't been thought through.
And just remember, for every Mac Fanboy out there, there's a Mac Hater more than willing to fan the flames.
It's not really the same as wanting to buy your car and then getting a digital photo of it instead. It's more akin to buying the right to drive to your car. It's what you can do with it, not the object itself, that is of value (the Taoist notion comes to mind: It's not the bowl that is useful but the space inside where you can put your food.) I don't own the car proper, but I am allowed to drive it per whatever our agreement was. If at the end of the deal, I am no longer able to drive your car because that's what the contract states, then that's what legally should happen. If I don't like that idea, I should find someone with a better agreement. Barring monopolies, the free market should sort this one out just fine, but only if enough people actually give a damn.
This is the crux of the whole argument about "intellectual" property. I'm not suggesting "pay per play", but certainly would like to see that anyone who plans to put the song in their library pay for it.
Also, someone in the process does have to continue putting work into the song in order to continue selling it. Publicity, promotion, publishing, etc... all add up to time spent not making money doing something else. Otherwise, in a world of fast moving information, the song may not have much of a shelf life, or a listener base. Some of my favorite songs I discovered not from what my friends were listening to, but because of clever promotion on behalf of the artist/publisher/record company.
I would be curious to know what a world without "intellectual property rights" would look like economically, as it seems somewhat complicated to contemplate. It's possible that there would still be high quality recordings of high quality music out there, though I'm not certain that would be the case. That isn't necessarily a bad thing but it is different, and different is scary to people who currently make their living off the status quo. Change can often take a lot of work, and often invalidates the lot of work that went into learning how to function in the current system.
What...you don't remember Napster?
Oh...you must be new here.
1) Songwriters and composers everywhere thank you for acknowledging that the creation of the material is in fact not work at all (certainly not work that might deserve compensation of any kind.) Their material is in fact floating freely in the air to be snatched up by whatever live act is quick enough to grab it. Meanwhile oil (not truly produced but extracted), automobiles and computers are all products that involved actual labor and are much more crucial to our society, and so deserve to see the money.
2) The love of doing it is often overtaken by the love of one's self. YouTube is a cheap as free medium by which anyone can show off their latest work. As has always been the case in art, there are occasionally kernels of brilliance to rise out of obscurity, only the easier it is to "produce" free art, the more you have to wade through to find the good stuff.
"Art" has always been about money or status. Always. That's not to say it isn't produced by something visceral within us, but once produced we want to share it...and we'd like to not go hungry doing it.
Because if you break it down, the only jobs that really matter in the world are the ones that provide food, shelter, and health. So why not give everything else away for free.
Must agree. Amiga and ST had eye candy, usability and games that actually provided clever entertainment (they looked good, at that.)
Sure, improvements in hardware have yielded some good results, but mostly people chasing hyper-realistic graphics (which I still don't see.)
Please tell me where I can return opened software (and I do mean return, not exchang.)
Inconsistent metaphor, I think. When you buy a newspaper, you only need one...it's dated material...you read it...you're finished with it. Perhaps you leave it where someone else can read it. The end result is, after that day, that paper is (for 99% of readers) not something they are going to reuse.
Downloaded music, however, is going to be subject to repeated listenings potentially throughout the lifetime of the listener/buyer. Digital storage is cheap. Really, though I'm sure there's a few exceptions out there, how many people still have music floating around on hard drives or CDs from the old Napster days? If you liked the music, I'll bet it's still there.
After all, shareware is not really a lucrative way of doing things.
Then perhaps you should be allowed to acquire another copy of the download. After all, it's digital, and an additional copy in your hands is not likely to be a threat to the profits of the company you downloaded it from.
I think I have the solution. Give the company access to your hard drives so they can delete it personally. While we're at it, we can build in a flag in the OS that can indicate if the song has been burned or copied...or maybe just use stronger DRM to ensure that if it's "returned" than it cannot have ever been copied to another machine. Now consumer rights are protected!
Disclaimer: The above was not remotely sincere.
For those who claim Wikipedia is too inaccurate and too often the solitary source people use to get their information, don't forget the various news agencies, blogs, and library books from umpteen years ago where they also may be getting their information. Never inaccuracies (or anachronisms) in any of those, no-sir-ree.
"Most of the time Wikipedia varies between mediocre and deeply flawed. Yes there's lots of interesting trivia in there but there are also gaping flaws that the unwary won't pick up on."
Sources, please.
There is a gross misperception of live performance...namely that it's so damn easy and lucrative. As is the case with many aspects of this industry, talent is not the sole criteria for quality. Venues could have numerous reason to book or not to book you, and the less they have to pay you, they happier they are. (Try getting money out of them sometime.) Some are better at the game than others but that's my point. Some of us are better writers or players or performers or managers, and if we can't afford to pay other people to pick up the slack where we're lacking, and if we are in a market that's less forgiving when it comes to venues (crappy management perhaps, or maybe an area that doesn't have a lot of venues or potential audience) then you are SOL.
Furthermore, not all music is designed for live performance. A great deal of it is more effective as recorded art, or would take an inordinate number of players to make it work. It still costs money to produce quality material. Some get lucky from time to time, but rarely does someone lay down a record all their material on a 4 track cassette recorder and consistently maintain a fan base. You can do that as a one-off, but audiences are fickle and lose interest quickly.
I'm not saying DRM is the great hope of the artist. I am suggesting that it's an issue that's become very one sided. Napster may have introduced a lot of people to a lot of new music, but a lot of people did not get paid for that music. At that time, especially, the attitude was that it was "free". There wasn't a lot of talk about how they would "pay for the one's they liked", and when it was mentioned, I rarely noticed those records showing up in people's collections because a) they already had it on mp3 and b) they were already on to discover what other music they could horde. This is why modern DRM came about to begin with.
It's possible the climate's changed since that late 90s / early 00s, and that people mean it this time about buying the music they want to support, but proving that to the industry is going to be a hard fight.
This started with people acquiring content they didn't pay for. People can argue all they want that it started with corporate greed, but if people weren't paying the prices then the major labels and movie studios couldn't keep those prices that high. This is about the consumer, and they know it. They treat the consumer as if they don't trust them because of things like napster. What we should have done was to just boycott them outright and make a stand until they produced better priced media. Well, the cat's out of the bag, now. The supply of a single "product" is upwards to infinite, but the supply of the product type may not be.
Fair enough (re: the lighting tech, etc...), but how about the artist. I only say this because I'm a songwriter and if people don't buy, I don't get paid. Metallica may be set for life, but it's a lot of work writing, publishing, recording, producing, promoting, etc, and takes up a lot of time. That cost can be redistributed to other people but only a) if a label picks you up and is willing to front some costs or b) if it comes out of my pocket. When it comes out of my pocket, it's a mighty big gamble, and if there's no chance of return on my efforts, then why bother to produce a good quality song/recording when I could be paying the rent and eating?
You can't seriously think that's the conclusion large corporate entities are going to come to? This will only prove their point that DRM is a fiscal necessity for them to survive. Now, there are hucksters out there at the top of this DRM chain, for certain, but below them are usually a lot of hard working people creating, developing, producing and distributing these works. How will they get paid? You think the hucksters on top give a damn about those people getting paid? No. You and I should care, because otherwise the flow of media comes to a crawl of the lowest common denominator.
You can do art for free for a while, but at some point you have to pay rent and put food on the table.
Give me a better solution than DRM to accomplish this, and I'll gladly listen. I'd prefer something else over restrictions on accessing content I'm paying for.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mohandas Gandhi
If you don't fight for what you think is important, then you might as well lay down and die. Other people will always make your decisions and you will never find contentment.
No-one ever gets everything they want. But some is better than none.
And reality is malleable. At least insofar as "the system" goes.
Agreed. And if you vote with your wallet, it makes DRM less important, because the people who deserve to be getting the money for their work will get it instead of those organizations and corporations dedicated to strongarming your money from you. If you just want easy and free access to media you have actually paid for, then be selective about what you pay for, and tell other people to do the same.
Don't go nabbing it for free with claims of "well they make enough money as it is and it should be free anyway", because if they have any way of measuring how often that happens, it only bolsters their case that there is a demand for something that they had some hand in producing or marketing. Vote with your wallet, or else we'll just have more of the same.
Interesting. Would that right still be an issue, though, given that Apple isn't forcing anyone to use their system of "purchase and play", given that one could purchase their music elsewhere? I mean, why buy from iTunes if you don't have an iPod? Multiple sources still exist where one could purchase their music.
Not sure I see the connection between "life" and "statutory right to listen to music you've purchased" though.
And what luck for Arthur Dent. His experience could have been significantly worse than it was.
There's nothing preventing you or anyone else from putting out music without Apple's DRM, either. In fact, if Apple had exclusive distribution rights to the music being offered, I could see the argument. Much of the music that's distributed via iTunes, however, is a) available through other legal and competitive outlets (just because they aren't the leading competitor doesn't make them non-competitive) and b) able to be converted into other formats (which, granted, requires a some minor effort and resources, but is consistent and relatively fair considering the point of DRM should be to prevent redistribution without appropriate compensation for the creator of the work.)
Regarding the iPod itself, it is capable of playing multiple formats without Apple's DRM in addition to those "protected" tracks purchased via iTunes. Compared to some systems, I think Apple's is a pretty decent comprimise between the music listener/consumer and the writer/artist/publisher/engineer/producer/label that assembles the work. It bears keeping in mind that though art does not necessarily have to follow the money, art and commerce have a long history, allowing the entertainers/content providers to produce more (and theoretically higher quality) work.
I don't consider Apple's decision to maintain a proprietary DRM as anti-competitive because Apple isn't selling DRM. They are (via iTunes) selling music. If Norway considers Apple's unwillingness to license it's technology as anti-competitive then Norway doesn't understand what market it's trying to protect. Anti-competitive licensing of DRM would probably (I'm no lawyer) be an issue of patents, which I don't think has anything to do with what they are trying to accomplish. (Check me if I'm wrong.)
Also, how would a DVD Jon-style effort to crack iTunes DRM be considered legitimate use of reasonable force in the exercise of one's statutory rights?
Except songs are not fuel. You cannot burn your gas to disc and listen to it on a CD player. Nor can you re-rip into another format that would then have the correct viscosity to travel down a different bizarrely shaped nozzle.
Too many people seem to think music grows on trees...or comes gushing magically out of the ground. Someone should get paid for their work (work that entertains you) and frankly they weren't getting paid during the glory days of napster and the like...before DRM. If people were genuinely interested in the welfare of the artists cut, there wouldn't be any DRM. That goes as much for the big labels and content providers as to the rest of us.
I know this is slashdot, where genuine solutions are rare and griping reigns supreme, but if anyone has a better idea for ensuring a fair transaction, I'll just be sitting here...staring at the prompt.
Oh...and though it wasn't stated in this particular post, I have to add: iTunes does not constitute a monopoly.
"In economics, a monopoly...is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods."
Nobody said you couldn't buy your music, or your players, somewhere else.
If you want to legally purchase downloadable music, no-one is forcing you to use iTunes. There are many other services. Consequently no-one is forcing you to use an iPod to listen to said music.
Should auto manufacturers be outlawed because they use parts that are specific to their cars?
I think not. I...think...not.
Bush and Co. did lie about weapons of mass destruction. They desired a certain outcome and applied pressure on intelligence agencies to provide them with results more favorable to those outcomes. There was plenty of analysis suggesting we should take more time researching where Saddam's WMDs had gone, and very little evidence to suggest that he would have been capable of using them to much effect in the near term (particularly compared to Iran or North Korea) if he had them. He was the easier target to bring down, and Bush and Co. were relying on this to start a cascade effect within the "Axis of Evil."
We crushed Saddam's military ability in the Gulf War and continued to suppress it for over a decade. Western (primarily American) dominance of the Iraqi skies allowed us to maintain excellent intelligence on Iraqi troop strength and capabilities. Many in the Iraqi military knew what they were up against even in the Gulf War and surrendered quickly - not just because of coalition military might, but because they sincerely hoped this would be the end to Saddam's regime...one that kept them in check by way of fear.
Saddam, brutal and paranoid, was no idiot. No chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were used to protect Saddam's regime in any kind of last ditch effort. They were not found because they were not there. The man postured to maintain a sense of fear and "respect" from his people and his neighbors. If he did not, he could not have remained in power for as long as he did. Frankly, we called his bluff, but to suggest that Bush didn't fabricate a scenario to get us involved in Iraq would be severely "misunderestimating" what information we did and did not actually have about Saddam's power, methods and intents. Even if we discount and argue all of these points, he still lied about the relationship between Al Quaeda and the Baath party (contrary to all official analysis), thus incorrectly connecting Saddam Hussein directly to the events of September 11th.
Politics is a far more nuanced and delicate art than many people presume. Bush and company have, from the start, counted on the notion of "shoot first, ask questions later." Cheney himself famously said, "Deficits don't matter" which is a great barometer of his, and the rest of the administration's political methodology. See Defense Planning Guidance for more information on what kind of world this administration has been trying to create since before it was this administration.
-Zen