once I purchase a CD I can do whatever I want with the music, which the RIAA wants to prevent
I couldn't agree more. Mitch Bainwol (CEO of RIAA) stated in a recent presentation that CD burning - and not peer-to-peer filesharing is the big problem they're facing. The story is archived over at BoingBoing.
enforce a licensing model of music sales where they can charge you every time you listen to a song
This too is backed up by some compelling evidence. In 2003 the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities met, and one member stated that a "long-term resolution for internet-distributed music will be...licensing [or]...reliance on per-use, per-file or other "by-the-drink" fees." That quote can be found in "Legal Alternatives for Online Music Distribution (PowerPoint)" over at CNI.org.
One clever DefectiveByDesign volunteer called in, got bumped to a voicemail system by the secretary, then used the last four digits of the number he had called to dial directly back to the exec's mailbox. It was a sweet trick -- guessing that the mailbox numbers are the same as the phone numbers. I've been reading through the reports on the site, and it's pretty funny to read the responses they get.
And in response to the gist of the original comment: If enough people call in, I think this type of campaign can have a visible impact on an organization's daily productivity. If even 500 people call in, the RIAA won't accomplish much today. (Especially since we know that secretaries and other office staff are the ones who actually get things done.)
But I really dont see how it is stripping away your right to own and govern property.
Most of our content is moving to online/digital formats. Even our books are becoming digital. And it's much cheaper to produce digital/online content than to produce hard copies, so I'm a little concerned that as we grow to expect that our content be available in an online form, even to CLAMOR for content to be available in these new formats, that there will be less and less of a market for hard copies.
I'm worried about DRM because we might be moving toward a world where the nature of property changes. If it becomes acceptable to allow a third party to keep one hand on the digital content that I buy, it's not really my property anymore. Someone else has taken up residence in my record collection -- and possibly even in my books. I do tend to buy hardcopies of things I love, but for me it's worth vocalizing my response to DRM because I don't want to live in a world where books, music and movies that I love come laden with technology that lets someone else police my use. It's very possible that the same people would try to move toward a "per-use...fee system" (as suggested by the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment
Communities in 2003).
By the way, I've been reading through the call-in reports on the DefectiveByDesign page, and it looks like the RIAA was really taken by surprise. I would've thought they'd have been more prepared.
Slashdot Mirror
This too is backed up by some compelling evidence. In 2003 the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities met, and one member stated that a "long-term resolution for internet-distributed music will be...licensing [or]...reliance on per-use, per-file or other "by-the-drink" fees." That quote can be found in "Legal Alternatives for Online Music Distribution (PowerPoint)" over at CNI.org.
One clever DefectiveByDesign volunteer called in, got bumped to a voicemail system by the secretary, then used the last four digits of the number he had called to dial directly back to the exec's mailbox. It was a sweet trick -- guessing that the mailbox numbers are the same as the phone numbers. I've been reading through the reports on the site, and it's pretty funny to read the responses they get.
And in response to the gist of the original comment: If enough people call in, I think this type of campaign can have a visible impact on an organization's daily productivity. If even 500 people call in, the RIAA won't accomplish much today. (Especially since we know that secretaries and other office staff are the ones who actually get things done.)
I'm worried about DRM because we might be moving toward a world where the nature of property changes. If it becomes acceptable to allow a third party to keep one hand on the digital content that I buy, it's not really my property anymore. Someone else has taken up residence in my record collection -- and possibly even in my books. I do tend to buy hardcopies of things I love, but for me it's worth vocalizing my response to DRM because I don't want to live in a world where books, music and movies that I love come laden with technology that lets someone else police my use. It's very possible that the same people would try to move toward a "per-use...fee system" (as suggested by the Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities in 2003).
By the way, I've been reading through the call-in reports on the DefectiveByDesign page, and it looks like the RIAA was really taken by surprise. I would've thought they'd have been more prepared.