Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Author Posted March 24, 2005 Notice your defense of your position says nothing about the impropriety of cracking the codes. There are very few DRM proposals out there that would limit you from legally backing up copies of works that you bought, as long as the DRM came along with the copy. What's wrong with that? Yes, currently the DRM in iTunes is easy to live with; don't believe for a second that it won't become more restrictive if people don't voice their objections. If you don't like the new monthly subscription model of Napster, there are other alternatives where you own the CD. Currently, yes. What happens if the RIAA decides to only sell music online with restrictive DRM? BTW, what did you do in the old days when you left your LP on the dashboard ona hot summer day? Did you go back to Record Theatre and say, "I bought Abbey Road last year, but it's fried. I need a free replacement." Exaclty why I should be allowed to make copies for myself. (yes, I currently can but I wouldn't be surprised to see that change as DRM gets more of a foothold; plus, I can't legally copy a DVD right now without circumventing, in essence, DRM). You're missing the main point is that you are not buying the artwork when you buy a CD. You are buying a license to use that work on whatever medium you purchase, with a fair use right to transport that medium to whatever means you want to use for yourself. Funny, I just looked over a few CDs that I have, and I don't see any license agreement in there. I also seem to recall seeing commcercials that say, "Own Finding Nemo today," not, "License the right to watch Finding Nemo today!" If you want to use the right analogy, buy the actual rights to the song and then compare it to a painter asking for his work back. Sorry, but buying a CD is no different than buying a print (again, I don't see any license agreement in my CD liner book). Why are record labels allowed absolute control over that medium, but painters aren't allowed absolute control over their medium? The Xerox machine allows me to make a perfect reproduction of a print, yet it's not illegal... EDIT: Similar to the painter's print, what about a book that you buy? What if it vanished a year after you bought it. No different than digital DRM where the distributer gets to decide whether they want to delete your file (aka: make it unplayable) or not. And I can make an exact digital copy if I want with a scanner... CW
Arkady Renko Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 Hasn't the RIAA recently hinted that they wanted to exact royalties from used CD sales? What about the crack down on restaurants playing music off of CDs?
Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Author Posted March 24, 2005 Hasn't the RIAA recently hinted that they wanted to exact royalties from used CD sales? What about the crack down on restaurants playing music off of CDs? 285455[/snapback] Havn't heard that, but I know that the RIAA did try to shutdown used CD stores several years ago (10+?). They lost the battle though. This is a similar battle. CW
PTS Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 Screw the recording industry, I download songs illegally every day and I sleep very well at night. I encourage everyone to do so as well. 9 out of 10 doctors say it's also good for your wallet. The guys running the show at the record companys are making a pretty penny. I don't really care if they make 500 million this year or 400 million. Either way, its only a couple hundred million more than what all of us combined make. ps bring back the :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: smily :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: RIAA
Simon Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 Actually you're not even getting that. When I buy a DVD for the kids, I want to transfer it to VHS so they can take new movies to watch in the conversion van on road trips. But even though I purchased the DVD I can't transfer it to the medium I want due to the copyright protection. Honks me off.....
Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Author Posted March 24, 2005 Screw the recording industry, I download songs illegally every day and I sleep very well at night. I encourage everyone to do so as well. 9 out of 10 doctors say it's also good for your wallet. The guys running the show at the record companys are making a pretty penny. I don't really care if they make 500 million this year or 400 million. Either way, its only a couple hundred million more than what all of us combined make. ps bring back the :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: smily :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: RIAA 285464[/snapback] Unfortunately, it's comments like this that help convince people that DRM is a good thing. I honestly don't believe that, at the core, DRM is about piracy. Music and movie sales are at all time highs. It's about wanting complete control of the product and being able to dictate what I can do and for how long I can do it with a peice of media (music and movies specifically). Another way to get recurring income, perhaps forcing people to buy the song every month/year/two years, etc. CW
crazyDingo Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 Screw the recording industry, I download songs illegally every day and I sleep very well at night. I encourage everyone to do so as well. 9 out of 10 doctors say it's also good for your wallet. The guys running the show at the record companys are making a pretty penny. I don't really care if they make 500 million this year or 400 million. Either way, its only a couple hundred million more than what all of us combined make. ps bring back the :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: smily :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: RIAA 285464[/snapback] AHEM... As attorney for Mr. Clutch I would just like to state for the record, your honor, my client was merely using hyperbole and in no way was impuning himself vis a vis the whole file sharing thing. He was sort of joking in a way, probably. Besides, who would defend the Record Industry?
GG Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 What happens if the RIAA decides to only sell music online with restrictive DRM? You will have the choice as a consumer not to buy that item. Funny, I just looked over a few CDs that I have, and I don't see any license agreement in there. I also seem to recall seeing commcercials that say, "Own Finding Nemo today," not, "License the right to watch Finding Nemo today!" I believe the ads say, "Own a Finding Nemo DVD," not "Own Finding Nemo" that is a major distinction, which I'm having a hard time getting across to you. You have all the right in the world to contact Eisner and ask to buy "Finding Nemo" and then share it with the world. (Btw, check out that CD jacket again. What do you think "All Rights Reserved" language means?) Sorry, but buying a CD is no different than buying a print (again, I don't see any license agreement in my CD liner book). Why are record labels allowed absolute control over that medium, but painters aren't allowed absolute control over their medium? The Xerox machine allows me to make a perfect reproduction of a print, yet it's not illegal... Let's stick with proper analogies, shall we? What kind of print would you buy that would enable you to own the original work? A XEROX will never make a perfect reproduction of an original work. How many photographers will give out their negatives? That's the analogy. A poster of Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa. Record companies do not have absolute control of the medium. They have absolute control of the artistic works they put on the medium. EDIT: Similar to the painter's print, what about a book that you buy? What if it vanished a year after you bought it. No different than digital DRM where the distributer gets to decide whether they want to delete your file (aka: make it unplayable) or not. And I can make an exact digital copy if I want with a scanner...CW 285452[/snapback] Again, a scanned copy of the book is not the same as owning the book. If you move to a new town and don't pay the old town's taxes, are you still entitled to use the old town's library? You are perfectly free to put a microphone in front of your PC speakers and record the "rented" license of the music and own it forever. It won't quite sound the same, will it?
GG Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 Unfortunately, it's comments like this that help convince people that DRM is a good thing. I honestly don't believe that, at the core, DRM is about piracy. Music and movie sales are at all time highs. 285471[/snapback] I do suggest checking facts before making such statements: From todays' Wall Street Journal Global sales of music CDs and DVDs combined fell for the fifth year in a row last year, according to a report released yesterday by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, although the decline was the narrowest since sales began falling. ..... In a statement, John Kennedy, IFPI's chairman and chief executive, called the results encouraging, but noted that they were "extremely mixed." Indeed, sales of CDs actually fell at a sharper 2.6%, but were offset by strong growth in music DVD titles. linky
Dan Gross Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 Why are record labels allowed absolute control over that medium, but painters aren't allowed absolute control over their medium? The Xerox machine allows me to make a perfect reproduction of a print, yet it's not illegal... 285452[/snapback] Let's go with artistry of a different medium, photography. Why don't you try taking that nice Olan Mills portrait of you and your family down to Wal-Mart and make a copy on their Kodak Picture Maker? I bet you the clerk will not let you buy the print, if the clerk even lets you make it. Why? Because it is illegal. I bet, if you read all the screens on said machine you will at some point see a warning that says it is illegal to make unauthorized reproductions of professional photos. Oh, and by the way I just picked up a random CD in my collection. On the back of it are the words: "All rights reserved. Any unauthorized reproduction is a violation of applicable laws." Rather succinct, but sounds like a license agreement to me. BTW, the "limited time-frame" license for entertainment has already been attempted. Don't you remember DivX DVD's?
Arkady Renko Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 Unfortunately, it's comments like this that help convince people that DRM is a good thing. I honestly don't believe that, at the core, DRM is about piracy. Music and movie sales are at all time highs. It's about wanting complete control of the product and being able to dictate what I can do and for how long I can do it with a peice of media (music and movies specifically). Another way to get recurring income, perhaps forcing people to buy the song every month/year/two years, etc. CW 285471[/snapback] I agree with Coy Wire, it is harder to argue against stricter copy protection when people act like they don't have to pay for anything. On this board I might seem like a pretty liberal guy when it comes to the DRM issue, but at college I often stood alone advocating that people actually purchase for their music and movies once in awhile. (While I am not always perfect, I slowly reformed after my freshman and sophomore years. I can change, so can you.) While there always will be abusers of the system, I do not believe it has to be as rampant as it is today, DRM or no-DRM. Since Napster, young people don't think they have to pay for music and movies just like they don't have to take a test honestly. They think they aren't hurting anyone, but they actually are just making it more costly for everyone else to stay honest. It is a selfish, childish attitude that must and can change. People are always going to be able to circumvent copy protection. In the long-run, however, I don't think more draconian rules is the way to go. We, as a society, just need to work harder to change this attitude. What bothers me on the RIAA/MPAA side is that if they had free rein, they would ride roughshod over the public. And unfortunately, they have disproportionate influence in government. EFF doesn't really have the same kind of clout as they do. Also, unlike most industries, there really isn't the same opportunity for a company to compete by offering more liberal use-rights. These two organizations act like a trust for their industries. The process of creating universal standards for HD-Broadcasts and DVD-formats offers little wiggle room when it comes to companies being more liberal in the DRM arena. Just my half-pence. Didn't mean to preach, my bad. I apologize for any offensive statements that I might have made. Now Coy, maybe you might have more time to work on your safety play if you didn't spend so much time arguing about IP law.
Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Author Posted March 24, 2005 Oh, and by the way I just picked up a random CD in my collection. On the back of it are the words: "All rights reserved. Any unauthorized reproduction is a violation of applicable laws." Rather succinct, but sounds like a license agreement to me. Yeah, my books say that too, yet I don't hear you arguing that I only have a license to use the book, and that the publisher can recall it at any time. I do suggest checking facts before making such statements... but were offset by strong growth in music DVD titles. I see "strong growth" there. Plus, I bet if you take just the US, the figures are even stronger, as China is a big hotbed of illegally copied music/movies/software/etc. Take them out of the equation, and I bet you're doing even better. Fact is, the indusry is just putting its own spin on things. Why is it that the RIAA pricefixing their CDs didn't really make much noise in the media? They were, in essence, stealing from me by artificially setting prices on CDs and not allowing anyone to sell at a lower pricepoint. Didn't hear much from the media about that, did you? The lawsuit netted me a whopping $20! Download one song off the internet, and you can be sued for $150,000. Where's the equity there? (Btw, check out that CD jacket again. What do you think "All Rights Reserved" language means?) All Rights Reserved just means that you can't do anything that is against the law with it. It's hardly a license agreement. The RIAA (and MPAA) tried to make these things illegal, failed, so now are going to use DRM to take away rights that have already been granted (mainly from the Betamax case). BTW, the "limited time-frame" license for entertainment has already been attempted. Don't you remember DivX DVD's? Yes, and it failed miserably because there were other options. The MPAA wasn't solely supporting that, it was a 3rd party effort. Watch what happens when the RIAA/MPAA do it themselves and don't give you an option. Oh, and "Don't buy it," isn't a good answer either. What kind of print would you buy that would enable you to own the original work? A XEROX will never make a perfect reproduction of an original work. How many photographers will give out their negatives? That's the analogy. A poster of Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa. Record companies do not have absolute control of the medium. They have absolute control of the artistic works they put on the medium. Your analagy is broken; when I buy a CD, I don't own the original work either. I can't split out the vocals from the drum beat. A CD of the Doors is not the original recording from the Doors. It's been mixed. Anyway, we can go round and round all day (and have ). I just wanted people to be aware of the situation so they can form their own opionions on DRM and can then fight or embrace it as they choose. CW
GG Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 Anyway, we can go round and round all day (and have ). I just wanted people to be aware of the situation so they can form their own opionions on DRM and can then fight or embrace it as they choose. CW 285580[/snapback] Yes we can go round and round. It would just help if information presented to people was given in a proper context and not mischaracterized by personal opinions.
Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Author Posted March 24, 2005 It would just help if information presented to people was given in a proper context and not mischaracterized by personal opinions. 285708[/snapback] You mean just like the media? Oh, wait. CW
PTS Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 AHEM...As attorney for Mr. Clutch I would just like to state for the record, your honor, my client was merely using hyperbole and in no way was impuning himself vis a vis the whole file sharing thing. He was sort of joking in a way, probably. Besides, who would defend the Record Industry? 285473[/snapback] Your honor, I would like to release my attorney from his duty. I did mean what I said. I do download songs for free, however, I do not share songs illegally. I leave that to the idiots who want to get caught. I take but not give and since you can't do anything about that, I'm going to walk.
PTS Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 Unfortunately, it's comments like this that help convince people that DRM is a good thing. I honestly don't believe that, at the core, DRM is about piracy. Music and movie sales are at all time highs. It's about wanting complete control of the product and being able to dictate what I can do and for how long I can do it with a peice of media (music and movies specifically). Another way to get recurring income, perhaps forcing people to buy the song every month/year/two years, etc. CW 285471[/snapback] Quite honestly, I do not know what DRM or the issue at hand is nor do I care. They can try to limit piracy or digital media, but it will never be stopped. For every Napster they take down, five more software programs that are even better pop up.
Spiderweb Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 Actually you're not even getting that.When I buy a DVD for the kids, I want to transfer it to VHS so they can take new movies to watch in the conversion van on road trips. But even though I purchased the DVD I can't transfer it to the medium I want due to the copyright protection. Honks me off..... 285469[/snapback] Ditto. It's really a simple matter of fair use. The Betamax case really is the model here. Despite the "industry" wanting them to be prohibitited from recordin the "industry" product (from a home user perspective), it ultimately created another whole new Multi-Billion dollar market for the "industry". The "industry" profitted handsomely inspite of themselves. Piracy is wrong, yet there must remain the component of fair use. You by a CD or DVD, you should have the right to use it anyway you wish, without infringements to the fair use principal. You paid the royalties at time of purchase. This model has served the "industry", elctronics manufacturers, retailers, etc., very well for many a year now. If you want to transfer it to tape, etc., you should have the right to do so. Remember, I'm talking about legally purchased product here. What's next? You buy a toaster but it only comes with a "license' for 100 slices of toast? To make more you have to pay a monthly fee? Jack Valenti (spelling?), may you rot in hell.....and all those like you.
todd Posted March 24, 2005 Posted March 24, 2005 I think the music industry is going to screw themselves on this one. If songs go over $1, I aint gonna buy. Lots of people won't. If they try to put limitations on when or how I can use a song I purchased digitally, I will not purchase them. Many won't. I love the ITUNES store because I think the price is reasonable as are the DRM restrictions. That changes, and I'm back to buying and ripping CDs. http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/22/2231213 I think everyone knows I'mm against DRM, but there's some interesting ideas being presented on both sides of the fence. I'm sure this can easily be moved to either consumer or PPP, but it can probably live here too since it's such an all-encompassing topic. CW 285212[/snapback]
Dan Gross Posted March 25, 2005 Posted March 25, 2005 I'm sorry Fez, but I do not see the business sense in offering only "rentals" of entertainment media, unless they do it at the same price that they sell stuff now. Think about it. In music, their target market for a CD will pretty much have forgotten a CD they bought today within 3 months. Why would they pay to "rent" it again, when there's new music to be had? Think about all the CD's you've sold/given away/are collecting dust... Similar things go for movies. I buy when it's something I might watch every year or so, but I would not own most of the movies I have now if they "expired" in three months. I have movies I bought a year ago that I haven't even watched yet, so I just don't think I'd bother. I would either catch it when it was on the tube (even in the Fezmid-predicted future where TIVO is banned...) or, if there was a specific time that I'd really want to watch it, I'd rent it from a video store (which I would guess would be cheaper....and how would they rationalize the business case of "battling" with rental stores, which are a major source of income as well). Think what you want Chris, but I can't envision where there's any rational business justification for a time-expire only business...
Recommended Posts