Attempts To Stop Music Sharing Pointless? 312
job0 writes "An interesting paper (Word document) has been submitted by some Microsoft employees (although they are careful to state that that the views are theirs and not necessarily Microsoft's) to the 2002 ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management stating that attempts by the record industry to stop music copying will fail simply because a) the growth and availability of affordable broadband and cheap data storage devices and b )ability of users to circumvent any DRM measures means that the number of people willing to swap is growing and will soon outstrip attempts to shut them down. The paper goes to suggest that the record industry should concentrate their efforts on trying music cheaper and easier to get hold off. I wonder if Hilary and friends have had a read. The BBC is also carrying the story." (OpenOffice has no problem with the paper, btw.)
therefore... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:therefore... (Score:4, Insightful)
A correctly designed P2P network (for the canonical example, Freenet, although it sacrifices everything else, including efficiency, for this property and is therefore damn awful at swapping, say, OGGs and MP3s) masks these locations in any case, mirrors the file, and foils attempts to remove it.
This is analogous to the current situation with appz - vis a vis, skilled crackers in groups upload them, not random people. This is an improvement on the random P2P warez, because the average quality of the resulting material goes way up (quality is one thing that P2P isn't well known for).
Re:If it's done correctly... (Score:4, Insightful)
So to support this new technology, you're asking consumers they have to effectively scrap their entire system?
The depressingly slow adoption of new consumer equipment to migrate to the "required" new HDTV broadcast standards in the US is good proof of this model failing in real-life. Arguably, high-definition TV is a lot more value-added than protecting the already-hated record industry's bottom line.
If it came to that, I'd go back to vinyl.
Of course it's pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Who knows what kind of problems the MPAA is making for itself by going after something that has been done since recording devices were made available to consumers.
War on drugs (Score:2, Insightful)
The result? It's given birth to powerful drug cartels (which is an even more vicious group of people than the mob during the Prohibition), crime, violence and prisons chock full of small time "criminals" like pot dealers.
Re:Of course it's pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
Well let's go back to the 1930s, during the Depression, when technology was very primitive, records were made of shellac, very noisy and easily broken, holding no more than 5 minutes or so of music on each side.
Imagine if, on those times, people were able to listen to music for free. Imagine a hypothetic technology, let's call it "radio" for lack of a better name, that could bring music for free to each home. Why would anyone buy a record, in those very hard times, if they could listen to music for free? Obviously, the music industry would never have developed, and one would be totally unable to get any sort of music today!
Re:Of course it's pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course it's pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between this and radio, is that the person obtaining the mp3 from me never paid the license fee to the copyright holder, but he still has a permenant copy of the song. OK, you could record the song from the radio, but the quality would be crappy and most stations talk at the beginning of the song and fade another song into the end. If you listen to the radio, the station is paying the copyright holder for you. If i'm not mistaken, the fee can be quite high for the broadcaster.
I guess you could make an argument about my purchacing the disc pays the license for all the people I give the song to, but that's not really true in relation to radio.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is: Radio is _not_ free. Your fee is being paid by someone else.
BTW, the reason I share anything I buy with someone else is: The people who pirate something would have rarely bought it to begin with. And on top of that, it's my way of dumping the digital tea into the harbour.
Re:Of course it's pointless (Score:2, Funny)
Leading to mutated virus-carrying micro-fishes, that's all we need
Someone else pays (Score:2)
An excellent point. You may never have heard of a given artist, but you pay for his work nevertheless, if you buy a product that sponsored him. From the moral point of view, if I pay for artists I never heard, it's only fair that I should be allowed to get other artists' work for free.
The bottom line is, there aren't many artists starving. Mariah Carey, for instance, got $28 million for failing to sell enough records. The whole media industry is a rotten and immoral system, if P2P will help us get rid of it, good!
filesharing is_not_free (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, when you download from someone, the person you download ripped the mp3's from a cd, so they have paid the license fee, or perhaps it was who they downloaded from - *someone* paid the license fee. Maybe they recorded the song from the radio, and so the radio station paid the license. But someone paid.
Re:Of course it's pointless (Score:3, Interesting)
?? no way. the people who are pirating desperately desire the stuff they're copying. Have you ever heard the pleas in a warez chat room? People pirate this stuff because they can't afford it . I can get 12 hit songs overnight, sure I'd love the higher quality CD originals with cover-art and all those extra tracks, but I could not afford to buy 12 CDs in one weekend.
Mangu is right. There is no reason for us to sympathize with artists or the riaa. we have glorified these people with fame and money for too long while real heros like medical researchers continue to work without recognition for peanuts. I hope this is the end of an era. If individuals are gifted and truley love the arts they will continue to create great work, but now let the limelight shine elsewhere. Isn't the world tired of hearing on primetime news about extravegant details of some barbie-doll singer with an oversized pocketbook and no real creative spirit to boot? I for one wouldn't miss such spectacles a bit.
true music lover
Re:Of course it's pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say that PERFECT DRM were achieved, down all the way to the speakers, microphones and recording equipment. The only way to overcome this would be:
1. Get a soundproofed professional recording studio, the best possible DRM speakers. Strong encryption forces this.
2. Develop high-quality illegal non-DRM microphones and recording equipment.
3. Rerecord the tracks and burn them to non-DRM CDs.
4. Sell them on the black market to support the expense of the above.
5. PROFIT!
With digital technology (TM), generational losses are limited to just one generation!
Guess who are the ones who have the capability to do this? That's right. Organized crime. By using DRM to shut down file sharing, the RIAA and MPAA force the possible economic benefits from technology out of the hands of the consumer, into the hands of -- not themselves! -- but the mob.
Prohibition all over again. They never learn.
Re:Of course it's pointless (Score:4, Funny)
For DRM
Any and all music will be available to everybody for free at the click of a Kazaa button. Impossible to make money out of this, even for artists, unsigned artists don't have expensive mixing equipment nor gay extroverts with pink-haired poodles
Creating "popular" music/movies that all your customers like won't make you money, sending a message that success is not rewarded financially, nobody in the United States/World will want to get a job, therefore Capitalism will collapse and Sharia Law may be imposed by a replacement power (I'm not joking)
When the ROI on making songs and forming bands becomes zero, there will be no new music, radio stations will constantly repeat 60's music. Where would we be without Britney/Madonna/MichaelJackson/ElvisPresley?
Piracy extends to movies, the majority of movies are flops, paid for by the big hyped up "standard" movies like Titanic, which is exactly what'll be affected by piracy (how many Chinese big budget $200million movies are there?) causing a collapse in the special effects and computer industries (AliasWavefront will go bankrupt)
If for 10 years no new "popular" music nor movies are created, there'll be a massive spread in depression and suicide rates - PEOPLE WILL DIE! In Civilisation 3 remove all Entertainment and see what happens
Against DRM
Stifles computer innovation, DRM-hardware allows monopolical tyranny, and impedes legitimate computer uses
Difficult to make transparent, therefore necessitates Comp Ed lessons and licensing of computer users "It's illegal to use a computer unless..."
Damages First Amendment freedoms
RIAA/MPAA not forced to explore more efficient distribution mechanisms
No incentive for musicians/moviemakers to add extras to movies such as theaters with laser shows and smell-a-vision
Music-sharing can't be stopped.... (Score:4, Insightful)
As I've said a number of times, the music companies know that music sharing is actually increasing sales at the *moment*, but once broad-band becomes fast & standardised, sending a whole album will become as simple as sending a 5kb file... people will think "I'll download that" rather than spending half an hour downloading a file and thinking "I'll buy the album".
I can imagine albums being released, 'music warezers' cracking the DRM within hours, and the albums spreading like wildfire across every instant messaging client in sundry.
they don't need to "stop" it (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, people will always "illegally" share music. But if given good enough of an alternative, I think a large portion of current P2P users will go back to legitimate means of getting music. And the industry will still make money.
Price point? (Score:3, Interesting)
I curious about the incredibly low price (IMHO) many expect for individual songs. I suggest the price for individual songs should be relatively high -- like singles at the record store -- and entire albums sold as a package discount. The singles price accounts for overhead and transaction costs, as well as the songs that didn't do so well but still cost money to produce.
If $1 is the most you think fair for that great song
Anyway, it is not ethical to try to extort better prices from the industry by telling them I'm going to go on breaking the law until you do what I say. It's not like they are putting an extortionate price on your daily bread. If you don't like the prices, give up the product. If it weren't for fricking piracy (and you need no quotes around "illegally"), which no I don't do, the industry wouldn't even bother with DRM; after all it costs money and good will.
True, as a marketing strategy, lowering prices will decrease piracy. But you can't spin that around to say that piracy is a vlid strategy for reducing prices. That's just rationalization for what you want to do anyway.
DRM promotes "piracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Back it up
2. Make a playlist from it
3. Play it in your car or DVD player
4. Play it on your iPod/Nomad/etc
It's far easier to download your song from any one of a dozen filesharing services. All that's needed is one guy who figured out how to rip it. Many CD-ripping programs, including open-source programs, have already developed ways to circumvent most common forms of CD copy protection.
All DRM schemes are horribly misguided because they make it difficult/unpleasant to be honest, because they are easily circumvented, and because only a few people need to circumvent them for the whole world to benefit.
The ONLY solution that I can think of -- the general solution to piracy -- is to make it not worth the trouble to pirate the songs. If you can get a 320-bit unencumbered MP3 from (say) EMI's site, for $1, without having to hassle with remote queueing, poor quality, getting the wrong file... Most people will pay the $1 and that will be that. I would. But I would never pay a dime for DRM material unless it was for a research project on how to crack it. If I can't put it in my MP3 collection, it's useless to me.
The record industry is like any other evolutionary system -- they'll either adapt or die. I have no doubt some companies will survive and prosper. But those who think they can keep pushing the '70s industry model forever, propping it up with DRM and other nonsense, will spend all their money and then die.
All the current legal efforts are the last desperate attempts of a doomed evolutionary niche to be relevant. They are fighting so hard because they have little time left.
$1/music is way too expensive (Score:4, Informative)
I would gladly go to a music store and buy CDs at that price, instead of downloading anything. But why would I pay $15 for downloading the music that fits in a CD? Someone would get the CD itself, and everyone else would download it. Let's face it, if the full cost for producing and distributing a CD is less than $2, on-line music shouldn't be more than $0.10 / music.
10c/track would leave nothing for performers (Score:2)
on-line music shouldn't be more than $0.10 / music.
By USA law, the songwriter gets eight cents per track for any copy of a sound recording. In your pricing scheme, this means the songwriter would get eighty percent, leaving little to nothing for the performers and those who provide the service.
Re:$1/music is way too expensive (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, I worked in a record store during the intruduction of CDs. At the time they priced cd's roughly double the cost of records and tapes, to supposedly cover the lack in supply and demand. The promise was that as CDs replaced tapes and records, the price would be adjusted. Well, here we are, and not only has the price not gone down, it's increased beyond financial environmental factors (inflation, consumer price index, etc).
Send $1 to the Artist (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe it's hokie or whatever, but I bet when an artist gets a hand addressed letter with a crisp $5 bill in it, they remember why they started making music in the first place.
Re:Send $1 to the Artist (Score:3, Insightful)
You missed the point. They will remember that they make music for people to hear it. Getting a letter from someone tells you that this person, this exact person not some hypothetical number in a mass but Mr. John Doe heard your music. And not only did he hear it he liked it. He liked enough to go out and find your address, put a pen to paper, and put five bucks from his pocket to yours. There is a huge difference both emotionally and spiritally between that and another few dollars at the bottom of an accounting statement.
Re:DRM promotes "piracy" (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. There's a new rule of business that came with the internet that a lot of businesses haven't figured out yet: If the pirate version of something is substantially better than the version that you buy in the store, anyone with the means to get the pirate version will choose it. It applies to music, to movies, to games... just about any form of entertainment. Many (most?) people don't mind paying $15-$40 (depending on the product) for their entertainment, but when they're forced to choose between a $15-$40 product and a free version of the same product that has more features and less hassle, they start to think differently.
Solution to piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DRM promotes "piracy" (Score:3, Insightful)
Sharing is not infringement in many countries. (Score:2)
Re:Sharing is not infringement in many countries. (Score:3, Insightful)
oh yeah.. i'm real ashamed now
Re:Sharing is not infringement in many countries. (Score:3, Insightful)
(imagine)
I discovered many bands, small ones and big ones, that way, by copying tapes.
Music is sharing for me. Why do you think (some) people come to concerts ? For me, it's to share a moment of music with a band and all other people in the room. I don't think that just listening to music is the whole thing and that sharing doesn't play a role.
Also, I firmly believe that I have the right to do whatever I want with your music, including sharing it, as long as it's not commercial.
Anyway, that's no black and white issue (like many).
Re:Sharing is not infringement in many countries. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sharing is not infringement in many countries. (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at it from your clients point of view: if you think you are entitled to get something for your $10000, why can't we make sure we are getting something worth it, before we pay $10 for your CD?
Re:Sharing is not infringement in many countries. (Score:2, Insightful)
once again, intellectual property is a joke. information wants to be free, witholding of information is greedy and dangerous, and will not further the human race. if the human race destroys itself, it will be due to greed.
and please reply with your thoughts instead of modding me to hell, i think i am making perfectly valid points here. thanks
Sharing is Communism. ;P (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, given the REALITY of the situation these days, you have a choice: sign a contract with a label, let them run things, and hope you get some money out of all their hype and networking. And get pirated, if anyone likes your stuff.
Or, you can go directly to letting people pirate your stuff, and with a little marketing effort of your own, hope that enough people want more of the same to make your money back.
I'd say the odds are pretty tight either way. Playing gigs aint exactly a goldmine either, though. So tough for you: you are finding out that being a musician/composer does not guarantee you a life of leisure and wealth. Join the club.
So cry me a river about your production costs. If you had a reasonable expectation of making money on it, you probably already did before the mp3s started flying around. And like everyone says: prove that pirating hurts sales overall.
Anyhow, it comes down to this: do you want people to hear your music, or do you want to make money. They can't BOTH be your first choice, man.
Makes sense.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the classic water leak problem...the RIAA is trying to bail out the extra water while what they should be doing is plugging the leak - ie. take out the root cause - expensive CDs.
This doesn't mean that file sharing will stop altogether. But it DOES mean that a LOT of people out there would cough up the cash because it doesn't burn a hole in their pockets. It also means that artists would get more revenue.
The problem though is that this means cutting all those profit margins - the RIAA would like to have their cake and eat it too. Sorry. Can't happen. In addition, trying to force the issue would just make sure that they end up with some super strict CD protection scheme which will hurt sales and basically backfire in the long run.
Also, it's not like CD sales have decreased. How many studies need to be published before they get it into their heads that sharing music also increases an artist's popularity?
Corporate greed makes you stupid and blind.
Re:Makes sense.... (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget that most music companies are giants. While to us a year may seem an awful long time to a multinational it takes that long to decide on the brand of coffee machines installed in the cafeteria. You can imagine how long it will take them to come up with a complete revamp of their business model. If you don't believe me try finding an example where a industry has changed their way of doing business in less then a decade. About the only one I can come up with is that "Prepay" on mobile phones. And this was a bloody long development wich went from prepaid cards for phoneboots to now Prepay for landlines.
Re:Makes sense.... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a good point and it's the subject of Clayton Christensen's book "The Innovator's Dilemma". He presents several examples, from earth excavating machines to retail stores, showing how well-managed large corporations are unable to shift their business model until it's too late.
In Christensen's jargon, downloading music is a "disruptive technology" which will lead to a whole new market, dominated by new companies. The current media giants will disappear, just like the vacuum-tube manufacturers never made it in the chip business.
Re:Makes sense.... (Score:2)
Phoneboots? You mean Maxwell Smart's shoe was pre-pay?
Astonishing how far ahead of the times spy gadgets can be, isn't it?
Re:Makes sense.... (Score:2)
Yes, but the RIAA member companies (Sony, Warner, Universal, etc.) are publicly-traded. Their shareholders (i.e. your parents and grandparents, maybe you too if you have a 401k) would be extremely unhappy if CD prices were drastically cut, say tenfold to $1.99, because at least in the short term, profits and dividends would also be drastically cut. The CEOs and board members responsible would probably be forced out of the companies, and their replacements would set prices back to "normal".
Sure, CDs cost too much, but the money isn't all going up greedy Hollywood noses; a lot of it is going into pension accounts and mutual funds for elderly retirees, who have never heard of a KaZaa and who will (quite understandably) band together to resist any corporate changes that affect the short-term profits of record companies they've invested in.
>;KWell gee whiz, like that wasn't obvious. (Score:4, Insightful)
Given:
Anything someone can invent someone else can invent a way around
Alot of people are interested in file sharing.
Hardware adapts slower than software. (Software can just recompile, hardware needs to be fabbed, purchased, and installed).
Anything that can be read for "authorized" playback must be by definition readable, and therefore can be manipulated.
Therefore:
The contest of technology comes down to a battle of man-hours. Who can put more time in a war of outhinking the other? A team of 100 professional programmers, working 40-60 hour weeks, or 100,000 crackers working nights, weekends, and vactations? No contest.
Also, you run into the same problem as the clipper chip. If you try and hardware protect things, you're stuck with it until you can update hardware if a vulnerability is found. Unless people start buying new CD and DVD players every week, there's no way not to have a window in which someone has cracked your system so it can function as the users want.
Now if your total protected data was small, or you had unique protection for each piece of data, you could probably manage. But having a seperate encryption for each audio file in existance is absurd. Getting the player to work with it would be impossible, and if the player has to work, then there's a way for someone to get the data.
This isn't to say that no copyrighted material goes over filesharing networks, that would be impossibly naieve. However, there's not going to be much that can be done about it other than waging a war that's going to be impossible to win, just because of sheer numbers on one side.
We all know DRM can't work, but that's not it. (Score:3, Interesting)
*What's going to happen when accessing content as we always have been able to becomes (to a greater extent than it is now) a criminal act?
*What's going to happen when people place their trust (and vital information) in a system that is fundamentally flawed?
Simple (Score:2, Interesting)
They go out and buy a copy of Windows.
Seriously, it's all in the marketting. Had the RIAA gotten on board with legislation when Napster had first opened its doors we'd be seeing a much lower level of filesharing since John and Jane Sharer think it's a bad thing or hard to do. Now that the non-technically inclined masses are informed and technology is easy enough to use file sharing is becoming as commonplace as VCRs and Tape recorders.
Luckily pushing bad laws takes time AND money. If it were only the latter we'd all be in trouble.
The Future... (Score:2, Insightful)
>Proper musicians (not Britney Spears) will leave their Corporate Label and simply distribute their own music. They'll make the majority of their profits from playing live gigs, something that pop acts aren't usually very good at.
>Music will be sold at a much cheaper price, perhaps free if thats what the band wants. I beleive that around £5-7 is a perfectly reasonable price for an album.
Unfortunately though, as much as the Record Companies would like it, i don't think that legal downloading of music from the net can ever became possible. The Net community has traditionally managed to crack and hack anything that requires paying for...
Re:The Future... (Score:2, Interesting)
> crack and hack anything that requires paying for
Despite which, companies like Corbis and Getty Images do make money selling photographs on the web. But they usually don't go after folk who use their copyrighted JPEGs/PNGs as wallpaper.
I think the key here is: do you see your customers as thieves (which is essentially what the RIAA does), or do you see them as reasonable human beings?
Re:The Future... (Score:5, Informative)
No, they won't. Because they have iron-clad contracts and they are not allowed to leave unless the label kicks them out. The labels have full control, and the artists will be just as trapped as the music lover. Look at Dixie Chicks, they tried to leave Sony, and after a long court case they finally settled and came to better terms (Sony realized how bad it would look to let them win, esp after earning over 200mil off of them while the girls only got 50k each). Anyway, they are still with Sony, that's how strong those contracts are.
MPAA: Any DRM crackable (Score:4, Interesting)
the legal protection in Section 75c should not be interpreted to the effect that a technological measure must be unhackable. All technological measures can be hacked. It is for this reason that the WIPO Copyright Treaties and the Copyright Directive have introduced legal protection for such measures. (Emphasis mine)
The comment was submitted, because MPAA fears that only truly "effective" technological measures would be legally protected.
DMCA didn't come from nowhere (mildly OT) (Score:4, Informative)
Realize that it isn't the DMCA where this comes from, but rather from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) [wipo.org] and a treaty [wipo.org] agreed to by some 38 countries [wipo.org]. Few of those countries, oddly, are in the EU, even though the treaty was signed in Geneva. Article 11 of the treaty reads:
Article 12 is also interesting, but more or less a corollary. It requires contracting parties to make it illegal to remove copy management information from a work or knowingly transmit a work which has had this done to it. I'd love to see a good page listing to what degree this treaty has been put into force of law in agreeing countries.
signers of the wipo treaty (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, none of those countries are in the EU.
Some of them are in Europe. Those that are, are in Eastern Europe.
They might be in the EU one day, but for the time being, they are rather the main source of piracy in Europe. Many warez sites are hosted there, and illegal "physical" copies are also mostly originated there. It seems, that this treaty is rather a sign of goodwill of the respective governments to do something about it.
I wouldn't be surprised, if those countries were pushed to sign, by being hinted they would have problems ever getting close to be in the EU if they didn't sign.
It's also conspicious that all of those countries that have signed (except for the US) are rather poor, yet western oriented. The citizens of those countries would be better off, if they could copy freely, because they probably can't afford to buy the originals. Hence, all of those countries might have been pushed to sign in order to maintain some sort of political or financial help.
I can't say that it helped much though from my experience. Also, most of the stuff I download, i mean: would download if I wasn't terribly law-abiding comes from within the EU, like Sweden where they seem to have rather liberal laws, and they are rather well off, so the US government wasn't able to pursue it's globalized war against terroristic piracy there.
..and frankly I hope they never will
The digital file isn't the only thing people want (Score:5, Informative)
A product like, say, a movie DVD gives the buyer a number of benefits. One of these, the ability to watch the show in high quality on demand, comes with the digital file, and this file will always be copiable.
The physical commercial DVD offers a number of other benefits though. There are the sleeve notes, photographs, the idea that the item is part of a collection, or provides some kind of link to the people who made the show or its stars.
There will always be people who just want the digital file, but there will also always be others who want the other benefits. Just as in the same way that some people will drink water from the faucet whereas others buy branded bottled water.
Re:The digital file isn't the only thing people wa (Score:2)
slashdot is getting old (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:slashdot is getting old (Score:2)
And if they get it to work, (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the biggest problem then is that an artist has to succeed on his own merits, not because of millions of dollars spent on promotion - you'd have to actually *listen* to music again and decide if it was good or bad. (I'd guess, though, that you'd see fewer crap albumns with two good songs on them.)
As for promotion, I wouldn't worry - word gets around - look at the way everybody just seems to know about something good or funny on the web. It spreads virally through weblogs and via email.
Personally, I think it will be fun to watch these dinosaurs die the sad slow death that they deserve...
So, guys, go develop your secure formats - when you get it right, we'll use it to bury you.
Cheers,
Jim
Re:And if they get it to work, (Score:2)
Of course not: the secure digital distribution technology will be patented out the wazoo, and the consortium who controls it will set up a fee structure that shuts out unsigned artists and independent labels.
can't be stopped (Score:2, Interesting)
If RIAA & co don't do something about the price for a cd, ppl will start to swap songs and get USED to it.
For now most ppl are USED to BUY cds. But is just a matter of time before it changes.
And once ppl are USED to swaping it will be a LOT harder for them to sell to sell their stuff.
Becuse the only way you can change ppls habits is either by saving them some money or make it easier.
And right now they can only make it 'easier' by charging $5 for a cd instead of 2 hours hunting for songs on kazaa.
Darknet- I like it! (Score:5, Funny)
Hacker 1: I really can't afford 3DSMAX 5.
Hacker 2: You shoould try the DARKNET.
Hacker 1: The "Darknet" ? What's that ?
Hacker 1: No-one can be told what The Darknet is- you have to see it for yourself...
graspee
Re:Darknet- I like it! (Score:2)
Yeah, I remember the SneakerNet... (Score:4, Funny)
Piracy has always been the same problem anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the law doesn't matter to people. They know they're not doing anything wrong, and would be quite shocked to be accused of stealing. They aren't stealing. They bought the tape/CD. You can argue that they're wrong, but I'm not the person you should convince. Everyone else is.
The thing is that people want to be able to do this. Even if you can stop them with a perfect DRM system, people will not accept it. It prevents them from doing something that they want to do, and the vast majority have no moral qualms over. If the majority disagrees with the law, then surely the law is wrong, not the people.
Re:Piracy has always been the same problem anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
As it is people already feel like they are 'paying' for P2P because they pay for the bandwidth. What other incentive do they have for broadband? We would all do just fine browsing text and a few images with a 52k modem. Rich media isn't just what corporations and media want to provide because the internet isn't Cable TV.
The RIAA still doesn't understand the medium they would like to exploit, hence their problems.
Re:Piracy has always been the same problem anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
In most cases, I'm glad as hell that "the people" don't directly make laws. The US would be a mess. Now in some cases, such as drug laws, it's a combination of the people demanding to be heard *and* there not being a good reason to have drug laws at all. With creative media, at least lawmakers realize that without copyright, there's no incentive to create any more. People have bills to pay, and if you can't pay your bills by writing, performing, etc., then most people just aren't gonna do it. Most people are incredibly stupid. They think in the short term, not the long (hence massive credit woes in the US, at least).
MS continually amazes me (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, these guys put forward a logical and convincing argument - and yet still the behemoth churns out anti-consumer crap like "limited copying" in WMP and "trusted computing" with Palladium. What's the goddamm point?
I'm not a big MS fan, but seriously, I think it's time for a generational change at the top. Ballmer & Gates are still thinking in late 80's and early 90's terms for so much of MS's strategic decisions... they're gonna go the way of IBM.
Actually, maybe they should leave management as it is...
-- james
Re:MS continually amazes me (Score:2)
-- james
Re:MS continually amazes me (Score:2)
These things happen in every large company. People disagree. Usually the differences are resolved in-house.
The BBC is also carrying the story.
However, this has got to be a big embarrasment for Microsoft, unless a miracle has happened and they have truly realized the futility of DRM and are starting to turn the ship around.
Unless these guys cleared the article with the top management they're going to be in big trouble.
Re:MS continually amazes me (Score:2)
-- james
Re:MS continually amazes me (Score:2)
Just look at the number of people here who are posting "if the price was only ___, I would drop P2P. Very small amounts of money * millions of users = huge potential windfall for the gatekeeper. And the gatekeeper is MS.
DRM Will Work- Too Much Money Already Invested (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately many people are naive, credulous and easily fooled and it is likely that they will not resist a massive PR/disinformation/advertising/marketing campaign. Many of these fooled consumers will not even realize that they will not actually *buy* the hardware and software, but they will in fact *rent* them since they will lose full control over their software and hardware, handing over their control to Palladium/TCPA software and hardware providers.
Considering that DRM will not work just because Microsoft wants us to believe that Palladium & TCPA is not about DRM, is just wishful thinking and another PR move.
Re:DRM Will Work- Too Much Money Already Invested (Score:2, Interesting)
The premise that something will work simply because huge wads of cash have been poured into it is not valid. There are many examples of products or services that people put serious money into goods or services that flopped because people still did not buy it, no matter how much advertising was done that stated you're a dork unless you have this cool thing. Anyone care to buy an Edsel? How about a Betamax? Or maybe you'd like a Sega Dreamcast?
Yes, when you state that there are gullible people in the marketplace, you are correct. But I am slowly seeing the DRM battles become more and more public. It is moving out the geek-only arena and into the public eye. Or in other words: when Granma finds she can't play her new CD on her PC while she's IM'ing her needlepoint club, that's when you start to hear about it.
Also consider the fact that technology is advancing too quickly for these companies to keep up. And before you say it, you cannot use as an argument that these companies control the technology, because history has shown time and time again that all you need is two or three geeks and a garage and you can start a new technology business to compete with the existing companies.
The only real danger is here is not from the businessed but from governments. We have to watch that governments do not try to legislate DRM. Fortunately, several of the more heinous attempts to do this have failed, but too many smaller ones have succeeded for comfort.
Surely, there is little they can do (Score:2, Informative)
Or do they intend to make everyone use "sealed" computers...
Re:Surely, there is little they can do (Score:2)
Ah, no, the loss of quality would be zero. Unfortunatelly, DRM is planned to ride in the signal along the digital connects, to be decoded at the latest possible point. All tapping the optic cable will get you is scrambled garbage.
What Was Left Out (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that I would buy media online if the idiots who owned it would just bother to take my money. The problem here is not so much taht people pirate media, it's that the media companies don't provide any reasonable alternative. (Aside from "Wait for ten years until we get our act together and until then shut the hell up you whining customers!" that is.)
It Is Official: It Is Safe Now. Buy Palladium/TCPA (Score:2, Informative)
Is it me or does the RIAA screwing up? (Score:2, Interesting)
First off, these constant lawsuits and actions made the RIAA one of the most despised and hated organizations among music lovers. And as they keep on doing it, it only provides more press for kazaa (like they did napster), gnutella, etc. making it grow faster. These P2P organizations *depend* on users, the more users the more quanity and variety files shared, the more it thrives.
That simple, in end effect, their constant berating of it made more and more people check it out, who wouldn't have otherwise, and legitimized it as an alternative to going to the local music store.
Second, these DRM on CDs is plain stupid. I bought 5 cds this year, and returned 4 of them, since they wouldn't play on my computer, (threatened fraud since it doesn't play on a cd player like it's supposed to.)
RIAA, do the math. It takes 1 person to hack and post that cd onto kazaa, and wallah, it's out there, spreading like a virus.
While droves of normal users end up returning your cds or not buying any more since they don't play. Hell, who knows, it might even drive them to P2P since they can't get the freaking things to work like they should.
Face it, RIAA, P2P is here to stay, adapt to it, or die. That simple, and legislation won't kill it off now.
Some suggestions to keep sales up, if you please:
For 15-20+ a pop, music companies should be regular packing some extra goodies with the cds regularly, hell make some knicknack crap in china for 10cent a pop, people love that shit. Or include 50% coupons off that artists next gig, whatever? It's not that hard. Or include a multimedia DVD with studio footage and all that, that shit is too much for 95% us to download right now.
Any thing that is cheaper than what your doing now, with your hundreds of lawyers flooding the courts, because even if it's shut down here in the US of A it'll happen in all the other countries.
Re:Is it me or does the RIAA screwing up? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are now many new ways to distribute music to computers electronically for very little actual cost. Tapes, records, and CDs used to be the most effecient way to deliver music to consumers, but now that is simply not the case anymore. It is much easier and cheaper for the user to download music than to get it in any physical form.
What the RIAA hates to admit it's in the artists' best interest to get their music in front of consumers by any means possible, even if that means not getting paid for their initial recordings. Britney Spears isn't rich because she recorded albums, she's rich because she used the popularity those albums gave her to do large arena concerts, pose for multiple posters, license her name on all sorts of toys aimed at young girls including a form of Barbie doll, and sell tickets to an otherwise poorly-done movie simply because she was in it. She possibly could have more money than she does today if her music was distributed free to listeners, because being more popular leads to more profits in those other businesses!
The music industry is moving to a "widget frosting" model of business. The main item gets given away free, but that main item tempts the consumer into buying accessories which make the whole system profitable.
The reason why the RIAA is running so scared right now is because there is no place for them in the new model. The artists can simply place
THE DARKNET WILL PWN JOO ALL! (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyhow, my point:
Can anyone see how DRM will actually WORK work? Like, we end up with a stable set of technologies that make it very difficult (if not impossible) to pirate copyrighted media? I can't.
All I can forsee is a quicksand scenario where the DRM technology changes so quickly, in an effort to stay "one step ahead" (hah!) of pirates, that the average user experience is complicated beyond What The Market Will Bear. Who wants to buy a cd player for their car, when in two years they will have to replace it to play the New CDs?
I'm guessing the trend will be towards digital radio and play-once licences. Selling discs is like selling tapes is like selling vinyl. Once you've sold it, it's no longer under your control.
BTW: Other than a slight degradation in signal, and a lot of sitting around waiting, what is so hard about taking an analog signal and re-digitizing it? Isn't this a pretty good low-tech way to get around any form of CD-based DRM?
Re:THE DARKNET WILL PWN JOO ALL! (Score:2, Informative)
Other than a slight degradation in signal, and a lot of sitting around waiting, what is so hard about taking an analog signal and re-digitizing it? Isn't this a pretty good low-tech way to get around any form of CD-based DRM?
cf Analog Hole [google.com].
Will they awake? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, because of copy protection systems, it is even more interesting for the users to buy a pirated CD. When they should be thinking of how to add value to their product -like including video images or extras with the cd- what they are doing is making their product lose value.
Have they ever thought of using new technologies - online distribution to retailers, CHEAP downloading services, online registration for cd owners to get some extras...- to make a better cheaper product?
How long does it take to any of us to get the songs through internet and then burn a CD? 15 min, half an hour? Don't they tell me they cant offer a competitive service given the massive economy of scale they are playing with...
Yes, this should be their way. Compete with file sharing networks.
Legitimate business (Score:3, Insightful)
When this happens, you will probably see the result of the reduced funding for things like:
MTV
radio stations
fewer new artists
less promotion
fewer gold and platinum records
fewer concerts
Yes, fewer concerts. With less money for promotion and advertising, and fewer people aware of in love with the record companies' artists, how are they going to fill the concert venues?
How are the "artists" going to live like millionaires after even the most popuplar cannot sell more than a few hundred thousand copies of their album? There will be less of a disparity between "discovered" artists and ones with record deals. MTV Cribs will be kind of boring.
Will MTV be able to pay for a Times Square office space for TRL? Probably not.
If the rappers were poor, think of what would happen to the 20" wheel industry alone!
Re:Legitimate business (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of your points are valid, and some are not. The large cost of developement of talent is somewhat of a misnomer. How many of you can remember a friend's garage/small nightclub band coming home and saying "We got a record contract" and then nothing ever happened? I have known several. The deal is that the record companied in a Faustian move sign restrictive exclusive contracts with groups that keep them out-of-circulation for years. A very few of them ever get into a studio. (BTW, the labels don't pay the same for studio time as you) Less actually get recorded. An even smaller number get pressed. Fewer yet get released. And a tiny few get promoted. a Couple become million sellers and next contract have the power to negotiate a contract that actualy pays them anything.
The name of the game is restraint of trade. Your garage band is not a source of revenue for them unless you already have a very substantial regional following, and even then most likely you are more dangerous as a threat to their chosen preformers success.
Read the lyrics to Pink Floyd's "Welcome to the machine", or Courney Love's (Gawd, I never thought I would quote her) essay on Napster. This stuff isn't new. Frank Sinatra founded BMI because of the same restraint of trade from ASCAP. The performers are generally screwed on record royalties. No one makes money but the label.
* SO, fewer new artists? I think more and better.
Narrow-casting rather than broadcasting. We have hundreds of new TV stations on satellite/cable. Do we watch TV less? Not exactly. Do we watch ABC/NBC/CBS less? Absolutely! Wait, two of those are also record labels. Could that be a coincidence?
*You are right that there would be a bit less promotion money for concerts, but not necessarily less concerts. Performers now make their money from concerts and not record sales. (Record royalty is almost exactly the same as in 1955 when I was first aware of it.) Also, promotion money is an expense against the performers take.
*MTV won't be hurt as much as you think. Check the ads - Clearsil and Sanitary napkins far more than Record Labels. Maybe a bit less perks and payola for the producers. They might even have to buy their own coke. But MTV has evolved anyway. Music makes up a much smaller part of their world to culture in general.
* Radio Stations? It's a wash. A lot depends on their playlist. In many places oldies stations outdraw top 40. Wonder what that says about the product? In any event the coke ain't flowing as free as it did in the 80's.
* Fewer Gold and Platinum records? Hopefully, fewer award shows too. These things are just self-congratulatory. Besides, I can't speak for you folks, but aside from DSOtM and the Doors first album, nothing I like is that popular anyway. My tastes are more personal and less mainstream. (BTW, those gold records come from the same RIAA that we all love so much)
The record industry does have a few ligitimate points, but they have never cut a performer an even break - much less us of the great unwashed.
Re:Legitimate business (Score:2)
True talent does not need to be promoted. On the other hand the collection of lip singing artists put out by the record industry needs a ton of promotion as otherwise nobody in their right mind would listen to Christina Aguilera.....
Re:Legitimate business (Score:3, Interesting)
> I'm sure most persons here know that there is a
> large cost involved in the promotion and discovery
> of talent.
Sure, the dumb way the evil sharks do it has a large cost. High paid exec goes through large numbers of hopefuls (takes a while and he is high paid) to find someone *he* likes. The promotion that follows is mostly trying to brainwash the world into thinking this performer has any talent. Many hours of high paid exec's time plus much slick advertising equals large cost and a lot of non-talented "pop stars".
On the other hand, a college student/musician has a professional recording studio (a Mac, some hardware and software, some microphones, cheap soundproofing from the hardware store he put up himself, etc.) in his basement. He records some mp3s and puts them on the P2P networks. Some people sample them, and tell all their friends (off and online) that this guy is awesome. Word spreads, and this guy has a market for his CDs that he sells online. The equipment pays for itself, because of his CD sales, and the recording and web site design he does for his fellow student/musicians.
Lower cost (free after the equipment and web hosting costs) promotion, no discovery costs, the artist gets to keep his copyrights and gets the lion's share of the money. Multiply him by hundreds and you have a new, better, music industry growing in the shadow of the old. Plus the guy has a choice of careers and real experience to put on his resume.
Sorry, all you Mr. and Ms. High-Paid Music Execs out there. We don't need you. We would have better music without you.
"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of Mothra (1961).
Follow the money (Score:5, Interesting)
Although the RIAA loves to squawk about the artists losing money due to file-swapping, the fact is that the artists get nearly nothing in the present system, and the corporations keep almost all of the moolah. This despite the fact that they contribute literally none of the value that consumers pay for when they buy music. You can't just replace Alicia Keys with Madonna; but it is completely irrelevant whether a CD is published by Warner, Universal or my cousin Vinnie.
They've been able to do this because they have had control over three elements of the music business:
Now, technology has loosened their grip on all three of these areas, especially the last. Neither the corporations nor anyone else can control how music is distributed any more -- it is, or could be, entirely in the hands of consumers. And distribution networks have a "word-of-mouth" effect on spreading knowledge about new music, so that corporate marketing is a little bit less important. And although they still run the studios, and probably always will, manufacturing CDs is almost obsolete now. All you need is a file; the costs of replication are nil, and consumers can do it all themselves.
I believe that most consumers would be willing to go along with schemes by which they pay for copied music, as long as the music costs significantly less than it does now (say, $1 for a CD), and if most of it goes to the artist (say 90%). The record companies will get much, much less than they do now, because we hardly need them any more. Of course, they do some work that is necessary and should be compensated, but it will end up being much closer to their true economic worth -- and that means a very small fraction of their current income.
But before that happens, they are going to bite and scratch and scream, and it's going to be ugly. They have a multibillion-dollar cash cow, and they will do everything in their power to save it.
Why I buy CDs. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you why.
1) CDs sound better.
Most Internet monkeys can not encode mp3s to save themselves. My sound setup cost me a bomb so I can tell the difference between 192kbps and the CD itself.
2) CDs are not just music.
Some album sleeves are works of art in their own right (e.g. Tool - Lateralus). There is also an assosciated boast factor in having proper CDs compared to home-burnt ones - like the difference between a beige box and a Cooler Master. There are subtle physical differences, but the Cooler Master owner is infinently cooler than Mr. Beige. And that's partly why he bought it.
3) If I didn't buy CDs, the artists would stop making music.
Even if I'm talking about purchasing demos straight from the bands themselves. Giving the band my money, no matter how indirectly, helps ensure that they will continue to make music in the future.
Hint: go get CDex and use the LAME encoder at 192kbps (or make it vorbis). All my CDs are ripped like that, and my WinAmp list all sounds great.
-Mark
Re:Why I buy CDs. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if I'm talking about purchasing demos straight from the bands themselves. Giving the band my money, no matter how indirectly, helps ensure that they will continue to make music in the future.
One small issue: Your argument that artists wouldn't make music if they weren't paid is utterly false. How many bands do you think make their music without any real hope of making it? Maybe every single garage band?
People do art because people like doing art.
Re:Why I buy CDs. (Score:3, Insightful)
What if you went to their concerts? You pay for the privilege of seeing them actually making music. If they want to get paid, they have to get up and perform. I know; it's a really old revenue model. Worked for minstrels, though.
Few more questions (Score:3, Interesting)
These songs are in wma and liguid audio formats so that they can build DRM protection into it.
But the big question is do we want songs with DRM? If yes, why do we want them so? So that we can redistribute them? Would it be fair to redistribute songs which we downloaded for 99 cents to millions of people using Kazaa? Why are songs any different from licensed software?
What exactly is the ideal solution that we are looking for?
Re:Few more questions (Score:2)
I assume you meant to write 'do we want songs withOUT DRM?' If so, then the answer is that so we can do whatever we want with them, up to and including redistributing. I can do that with CDs today, give it to a friend. I can also make a mix CD, sell it to a used CD store, and much more.
Would it be fair to redistribute songs which we downloaded for 99 cents to millions of people using Kazaa?
Is it fair for whom? What does this have to do with fair?
Why are songs any different from licensed software?
Songs are not software. That's how they're different. Do you even have to ask?
What exactly is the ideal solution that we are looking for?
Empry rhethoric and redundant questions. Do you have anything to contribute?
Re:Few more questions (Score:2)
Yes, my mistake.
>If so, then the answer is that so we can do whatever we want with them, up to and including redistributing. I can do that with CDs today, give it to a friend. I can also make a mix CD, sell it to a used CD store, and much more.
Well, thats the whole point. You can redistribute the CD but is it fair if ur friend makes a copy of that CD. So effectively he has the same CD but nothing went to the record company. By extension(exagerrated), record company will sell only one CD and everyone else has a copy, which surely doesn't make business sense.
And you can also make a CD with the songs which the record companies are providing for downaloads. So you can make any CD you like. As far as selling it in a second hand store, well, if you sell the HD with the song on it, you theoretically can charge the person to whom u sell the HD to. Its just that the medium now is different.
But thats not the point. The point is what we want a different solution. And my question was what exactly do we want? Whats so empty and rheotrical about this? I mean if u want to achieve something, you surely need to know what is it that you plan to achieve, or do u just want ppl to come up with new soutions and then say, hey I like that, and hey I dont like that, while u r sitting idle without contributing anything to it?
>Is it fair for whom? What does this have to do with fair?
Are u really that dumb or are u just pretending??
By fair I mean fair to the music company and the artist. You surely cant survive if make an album with 12 songs in an year and then one chap downloads that album for $10 and redistributes it all over the world, can u?
>Songs are not software. That's how they're different. Do you even have to ask?
Nice answer smart ass, what I meant was in terms of content licensing.
So my question still remains.... What exactly is the ideal solution that we are looking for?
Re:Few more questions (Score:2)
"Fair" doesn't really enter into the equation. The relationship between businesses and consumers works in pretty much the same way that any deal between two businesses does. We both work solely for our own interests and try to get as much as we can, and a good compromise is naturally created from that. Right now, we're getting a sweet deal from piracy and telling the RIAA "Make us an offer", and all they're coming back with is "We'll give you 50% less than the other guy!". Well, that just isn't good enough. They have to either make us a better offer or step aside while we either stick with piracy or find companies that can offer us something worthwhile.
They're not thinking of this in terms of how they can be fair to the consumer, so we shouldn't be thinking of this in terms of how we can be fair to the RIAA. They work for their agenda, we work for ours. I know it sounds mean-spirited, but it's just the rules of the game. It's the way that businesses and consumers have always worked with each other, especially since the industrial revolution.
tyranny and rebellion (Score:3, Insightful)
Many will not want to steal, that is a fact at least at this point (I won't say "most", just "many") that should be capitalized. There really are those that would use a system that pays directly to the artists and direct management even. What organizations like the MPAA and RIAA are more afraid of is NOT the theft of music, but the eventual rise of pay for play systems that would cut them out.
Think about it... what is the purpose of management, producers, lawyers, marketers, etc when it comes to music and movies? Answer: Very important, it is what actually puts the media out there in a usable format. It is what organizes the distribution and makes deals with various vendors (i.e. theaters and stores). These groups (RIAA, MPAA, etc) have like most bureaucratic organizations, mutated into a beast that spends more internally to keep their own infrastructure up (justifying their own existence) than performing their primary task. The end result is a reduction of efficiency (results or output) at a higher cost (input). Like all things in our society, it is the savvy industry that embraces the surrounding changes instead of running from them in order to reap the benefits. Had these groups spent their resources on adaptation instead of futile efforts to stop the media trading, then they would be in a VERY good position now. I think they realize that and like a child that made a mistake they are now throwing a temper tantrum for all to see.
To a band, movie producer (not publisher), etc... the only thing they want is an efficient method to create and distribute their product/service. If they can do this through the web (or at least utilize many parts of the web) and therefore bypass the more costly (in time, money, artistic freedom, etc) venue of a formal RIAA affiliated management organization then why would they want to stick around with the bloated management group?
In any socialist situation you end up inevitably with a welfare program that, as mentioned above spends more on internal infrastructure than in its primary function. The US government's steady fall into this system shows agencies full of internal bloat and inefficiency that has more internal support roles as it does the actual roles directly supporting their stated "customer." Why should the government have all the fun? Many companies would like to create such a self justifying organization that views its existence as a measure of sheer volume rather than actual output of goods and services. The problem is (much like with the government) that there is really only one road for such organizations... collapse from within. They will therefore lash out with all their collective might in an effort not to adapt, but to grasp and restrain the flowing waters of expectations tied to the observable change. Change is the only constant (and Death is the most constant of changes) yet these people live more for the static than the reality of the world. Why would you even TRUST such an organization that cannot even grasp the most basic tenets of the universe?
RIAA and MPAA are going down... sad thing is, they don't even realize that it is because of their own misguided efforts that it will happen.
lessons from porno (Score:3, Insightful)
Something I sent to the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
This is in regards to the proposed plan to 'protect' copyrighted audio recordings distributed via CD.
I think you are making a big mistake, as other consumers will confirm for you when your products are either boycotted or wholesale pirated as a result of this 'protection'. Regardless of what you do to 'protect' this material individuals will make recordings and redistribute to the demanding public. (Any CD player that supports your new 'protection' is certain to have a standard AV port, a really easy way to re-record audio data.)
Ever hear of a thing called supply and demand? Nothing you do will stop this. The only thing this proposed plan will do is take away any control you currently have.
The biggest problem you have created for yourself is pricing albums at $15 - $30 each. Consumers feel as if they are paying enough to justify redistribution to close friends, etc.. especially when they may only really enjoy one or two of the songs on the album. Selling singles of hits isn't enough.. the radio usually plays those particular songs enough.
Your only rational recourse is to create a distribution channel which adds value to your products which consumers will pay for. Obviously they don't feel the current situation provides enough.
One idea is to create a subscription service, wherein the user would get to pick out several songs or albums from the genre they subscribe to. Consumers might prefer to have a complete set of songs from which to make their selection instead of the mixed and potentially corrupted selection they have from online sources. For this service you could charge a monthly rate dependent on the genre or number of downloads, etc. use a focus group or something to decide how to bill people..
I think you'll find that all people want is the selection of songs they get to listen to without the overhead of buying every CD that comes out. People also like the fact that when they 'get over' a particular song they don't feel like they wasted their money. Some music does 'get old' rather quickly.
What I'm saying is that you need to abstract the value you are selling from individual recordings or artists. Music is an ephemeral sensation... what gets me going one day may change the next, that's why radio works, they can adjust for the current environment. Not to mention that there is sooooo much music available now, compared with 20 years ago. Personally I don't have the time to listen to it all but I can listen to the song a friend recommends or sends to me via ftp etc... do you get it. We don't have time to go to the store to buy the cd that has one song we like and if we're going to take the time to buy it online we may as well spend the same amount of time finding a free copy.
By providing 'free' access to all the types of songs that I like you would make it alot easier and quicker for me to find the music I enjoy. How about charging me $15 a month for access to 'hip-hop' or 'rock' genres with a full search on title and author so I can grab 20 songs I really want to listen to that month. What's to keep me from keeping them and trading them? Nothing, but why would I want to go to all of that trouble when I have the convenience of my monthly selection online. Storing all that data is a real pain. Keeping track of which song is on which cd is also a pain. Programmers have spent lots of time trying to make free software to keep track of that stuff and none of them do it right. Plus, you get $15 monthly from me just so I have access to new titles, old titles, whatever, in a convenient and time saving system, w/o the overhead of storing them all, etc.
Okay, do you get it finally. We want service, selection; added value. We won't pay for anything less (ie: cd's with just the songs on them)
Sincerely,
Heh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember, the weak point of p2p networks is that not everyone wishes to share... so they would only need to make sure that what they want to share (the corrupted file) is ALWAYS available for a big number of connections. Hell someone could even start a company to offer this service to media giants for a small ammount of money, and I bet the bastard would become rich in a matter of weeks.
Heh, I better go copyright this idea before it's too late.
Decameron
Avaliability of Tracks (Score:2, Insightful)
Not exactally a pointless venture (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus it adds more foolish restrictions and absurd laws that the rest of us have to deal with/work around.
When will they learn? (Score:3, Insightful)
Recently it was announced in the UK that singles sales had halved since 1988, why 1988? IIRC 1988 was the year that CD sales started to make an impact on vinyl sales. I alse remeber noticing that a CD single cost £2.99 in 1998 but a vinyl single cost £1.99. The same trend applies to CD albums they are more expensive than their vinyl ancestors. We are also seeing it again with DVD.
Now I don't know if it is cheaper to produce a CD/DVD then their analogue ancestors, I would say it is, despite what some people say about patent royalties etc. All I know is that record and movie companies use every little excuse in the book to put their prices up and make more profit, completely oblivious to the fact that they are alienating consumers. Is it no wonder we turn to P2P systems when it costs £16.99 for a CD and £19.99 for DVD? There is also the irony that the costs of developing DRM and copyright protection technolgies is passed on to the consumer, alienting us even more!
They need to learn that if they reduce the prices of thier products, people will buy them rather than copy them, simple really? In fact I would go as far as saying the record companies are following a business model that is doomed to failure. Does a department store raise its prices and force people not to share clothes they buy when their sales drop? Nope, they reduce prices to encourage people buy more clothes. When will the record and movie companies learn the basic concepts of how businesses operate?
new economic model needed (Score:2, Insightful)
The RIAA and the MPAA would be better off using their money into finding a new way of selling music.
Crosbie Fitch has an excellent article [gamasutra.com] at gamasutra which, among many other great things, exposes his views about a new economic model for such materials
"It's not a problem to ensure that communication is secure, from vendor to purchaser, but how do you prevent the purchaser from passing on that information for nothing and thus devaluing it?
(..)
Why should anyone produce a movie, album, or other easily duplicated work of art if only a single sale can be obtained?
Well, it's difficult to swallow, but the answer has to be that the single sale must cover the cost, even in spite of the fact that the work is unlikely to have a resale value."
In software development it is called the Ransom Model [slashdot.org]. It worked great for Blender, why wouldn't it work for music and movies?
(yeah there are lots of reasons but this is a viable solution..)
cb
My Favorite Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
(Found at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1982 [oreillynet.com]
Pretty much sums up my feelings on how the entertainment industry can survive.
DirecTV commercial (Score:3, Insightful)
The first thing in the commercial is a guy in a music store going to the counter holding several CD's. He says: "I'd like track 5 and 6 from this one, all of this one, and (several forgotten) tracks from this one." Then the ad breaks into promoting that you can make your own mix CD's by downloading all the mp3's you want.
If a big corporation can actually promote downloading mp3's in a national (?) advertisement, then what does this say about how mainstream, recognized, and accepted the phenomena has become?
Hillary Rosen would be spinning in her grave if she saw this ad.
History will defeat attempts to stop CD piracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, it's hard to put it back. The government (and the RIAA and the MPAA, who have strong governmental forces behind them) can certainly slow technological adoption, especially when the money flow to the rich and powerful is threatened. But the "natural order" of technology will prevent it from being squelched for long. For example, P2P networking - the heart of any truly free communication process whether electronic or interpersonal - has been temporarily squelched with the recent demise of Napster. But while P2P still thrives in the underground, quietly P2P is finding its way into the mainstream, for example IBM's YouServ [ibm.com].
The RIAA (to pick a target) built their business model on scarcity - creating first vinyl, then CDs, was something the public couldn't do, and they provided a service. They developed that service into an empire, and now they are using lawyers and laws to enforce an artificial scarcity to protect that empire.
What the folk at the RIAA have failed to grasp is that the world is changing. Though they will no longer be able to gouge the artists, they are in a unique position to drive the future distributed music business model. One possibility is for the RIAA to take the pulse from the 'Net and promote the acts that people want to see, rather that pushing the acts that they have signed to a market segment. The power shifts from corporate to public, but there is still room for corporations to make a lot of money - if they act in the public's best interest.
So given that the RIAA is not leading the way into the brave new world, we can expect to experience a period of instability during which many new technologies and business models will be created along with as many, if not more, laws attempting to preserve the aging status quo. Bottom line, I believe that there will be a music business in the future. But as it will be distributed and likely open, more people will make more money, and a few will make much less.
Finally, I'll bring up the Grateful Dead. They were the top grossing band of their time, and they made it off of performances, not album sales. In fact, they are famous for encouraging people to tape and trade their live concerts. They made money and their promoters made money. Ultimately, for any "software" (defined as anything that can be reduced to bits) the money is in the timely creation (performance), backup, search and retrieval (libraries, Google), authentication ('is that really an authentic <fill_in_the_blank>?') and support. Classic distribution channels are dead.
Similarly, government efforts to curtail technological advances such as encryption and (Internet) free speech have lost. Such efforts will be again doomed (ultimately - though perhaps not without great struggle) when they return (in all probability) as part of Homeland Security.
Re:Paper forgets quality (Score:3, Interesting)
Most "pirated" copies do not represent lost sales for the content owner. Individuals with large libraries of MP3s (for example) would not have purchased the CDs for all of that content if the MP3s had not been available. Content owner revenues are maximized by setting the prices appropriately. The best price is not necessarily the one that maximizes the number of disks sold. Major-league baseball teams, as an example, generally find that revenue is maximized with ticket prices that leave 10-20% of their seats unsold.
Quality should also be reflected in the price. If the choice is between a 64kbps MP3 and nothing, then the MP3 might be a good deal. Different people will make different choices between the MP3 and a lossless original based on the price. Even in the darknet world, these things have different "prices" in terms of storage space, download bandwidth, and availability.