Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:I hate to bring this up, but... (Score 1) 111

by ka-klick (#38850405) Attached to: ReDigi Defends Used Digital Music Market

Yup, I brought that up a while back, under the "First Sale doesn't Apply" thread. So far it seems ignored. Some other holes:

It appears this relies on the file being iTunes PLUS (not DRMed, but stamped). This is likely to bring back DRM.

It's also unlikely to work on anything that already had DRM not replaced by "upgrading" since that has ties into iTunes for authorization. (Free Songs, Old purchases you never upgraded).

Also they seem to rely on the hashed version Apple is now using to stamp these files, but they claim they don't decrypt this info, but rely on the hash as unique, but at the same time they say that they determine that it is actually owned by THAT user. How can they know it's owned by that user but leave the stamp encrypted?

Also, once someone "buys" a used copy of a file through this, if it's not just a "cloud copy" what prevents the new "owner" from simply copying the file to another machine (not running the ReDigi system) and putting it up on a file sharing service - complete with the original owner's details stamped on it?

Anyway seems like there's holes in this that you could drive a mac truck through.

Comment: Re:"First sale" doesn't really apply. (Score 1) 111

by ka-klick (#38844703) Attached to: ReDigi Defends Used Digital Music Market

Actually have mod points for once, but I'd rather expand on this point than mod it up (though I think it deserves a bump).

I'm kind of surprised that Ray's representing them. This really seems like it has lots of problems from the get go. The precedents don't look good to me. It seems like another "brilliant" idea in the vein of Psystar (and we all saw where that lead).

Here's a similar process, see if passes the smell test:

1. Buy used book
2. Scan used Book
3. Destroy book, sell DRM loaded PDF

After reading through the statement describing the process it appears that it has to start out as a digital file, but it still breaks down to:

Upload the (digitally purchased) item to a "locker"
Destroy all the copies that are currently on attached media (at least that they can find)
Sell the key to that part of the locker to someone else.

I still see some big holes here:

It appears this relies on the file being iTunes PLUS (not DRMed, but stamped). This is likely to bring back DRM. Not your client's problem (until it happens) but brings back the bad old days. It's also unlikely to work on anything that already had DRM not replaced by "upgrading" since that has ties into iTunes for authorization. Also they seem to rely on the hashed version Apple is now using to stamp these files, but they claim they don't decrypt this info, but rely on the hash as unique, but at the same time they say that they determine that it is actually owned by THAT user. How can they know it's owned by that user but leave the stamp encrypted?

It assumes that the user has no backups or other computers which could contain copies of the original iTunes purchases. Apple has been very persistent in reminding people to back up their iTMS purchases. Also, I've never done it, but isn't there a method that you can contact Apple to re-download purchases in the event of a disaster. What's to prevent me from "selling" all my iTMS purchases through this service, then un-installing and either restoring from backup or requesting new copies from Apple?

I also believe that under iTMS terms of service they explicitly state that the files provided are licensed, not sold. I'm sure you plan to try some attack on that tack, but that still leads me to this heading the way of Psystar. If the end-user never really bought anything but a license, then they don't really have a first sale argument.

Full disclosure: I'm a singer/songwriter (rights holder), and not a laywer, but I do follow these sorts of cases. I don't see how this is going to go your way (ultimately). First sale is an important right, but it's crap like this that will get legislation to override it. I think you're kicking the hornets nest (and for the wrong people).

Comment: Re:Shysters all (Score 1) 355

by ka-klick (#36696838) Attached to: RIAA Math: Sell 1 Million Albums, Still Owe $500k

Of course the RIAA still collects royalties from radios, pubs etc, for music by artists who don't belong to them. The amount of jumping through hoops to opt out is rarely worth the money you save. And they could sue you into ground before you can prove your innocence.

NO, the RIAA does not collect from those people, Performance Rights Org's do (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc) - they only represent, collectively, the people who actually write the songs that radio stations, pubs etc. make money off of. The RIAA is made up of the record labels (and at one time they also did useful things like setting standards for mastering EQs so that all equipment and labels product could work together).

Performers (and record labels) get no performance royalties at all in the US (and because we don't collect it, US artists don't get what foreign artists do when played abroad). That would be what the RIAA would be looking for if they were allowed to. They only get $$ from sales.

Opt out = don't use music in your business.
If you play music to attract customers you owe the people who created that music a portion of revenue.
If you use a MUZAK style service, you pay them (and they pay the writers).

Unfortunately the laws simply allowed the process to be out-sourced to collectives instead of taking it on themselves. Nobody questions that you need to pay a liquor license if you want to have a legal bar, but lots of folks open up bars and coffee houses, etc. never realizing that they are legally obligated to pay a license if they use music in their business. If it were like a liquor license it'd just be one of those things everyone would know to deal with instead of several different groups. Radio at least "gets it" and you aren't likely to come across many commercial radio stations that don't have up to date stickers from the PROs.

I'm a member of BMI, and it took me a long time to come to grips and join. I don't like that venues have a hard time with them (and they are still tied to formulas that make more money for the big dogs than anyone else) but as a songwriter I have no choice but to join one or leave possible money on the table that I'm entitled to. I'm NOT in any way affiliated w/ the RIAA though, I've decided I'd rather have 100% of a tiny amount than get a tiny percent of a larger amount.

Comment: Not shiny, but romantic... (Score 1) 320

by ka-klick (#33314536) Attached to: 7 Scientific Reasons a Zombie Outbreak Would Fail

Wrote a song about it. Like to hear it? Here it Goes:

Zombie Love Song (If anyone eats my brains)
http://www.reverbnation.com/tunepak/2759032

It's your basic boy is about to marry girl, she dies in a tragic car accident, but is brought back to him by the zobiepocalypse type thing.

This is a live recording - I have a better one in the works complete w. zombie chorus.

fortune: cannot execute. Out of cookies.

Working...