April 30, 2001

3:52 AM

the shame of the music industryThe industry seems ut to foil any attempt to allow known methods of foiling guards against making copies of music. Is this ethical and right or an imposition of monopolistic control over technology?
posted by Postroad (16 comments total)

I my opinion, they've gone, and will likely continue to go, overboard, using their power to unfairly tip the scales.
They are, however, correct in their notion that they have a right to protect what is theirs. Hence, they need to find a better means of defence, and we need to stop stealing their stuff!
posted by DanJr at 4:17 AM on April 30, 2001

and we need to stop stealing their stuff!

It's not about stealing, it's not about Napster. It's about pushing back the boundary of where the industry's rights end and ours begin. You yourself, DanJr, said they've gone overboard. The recording industry would love it if we had no way to retain a song in our heads after we heard it. Heaven forbid we should be allowed to do things like make our own mix discs, or rip to mp3s for personal use. I hate to get all Slashdot, but it really is about the right to use the media we bought in the ways we have traditionally been allowed to.

Sigh. Can't we just tack $10 on a CD burner and 1c on a blank CD, and get some personal-use copying rights, here?
posted by darukaru at 4:30 AM on April 30, 2001

Copyright, as a concept, is flawed.

This article basically shows that the only remaining method of enforcing copyright is a complete revocation of free speech.

It's increasingly impossible to control ownership of a piece of music, an image, a computer program, a string of ASCII characters, an idea, a thought.

The only way is to prevent people from playing music, drawing images, programming computers, writing text, being creative, talking, thinking.

It sounds like they're part the way there already...

Tim


http://www.timbooker.com/
posted by timbooker at 4:39 AM on April 30, 2001

"Readers of this column will be aware that the RIAA is suing a US magazine for publishing the code of a small computer program called DeCSS"

Did I miss something? Is the RIAA now doing the MPAA's work?

darukaru, I don't have a link handy but as far as I know (in Canada) there's a tax imposed on cdr's that goes straight to the recording industry.
posted by the_ill_gino at 5:57 AM on April 30, 2001

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of, the_ill_gino. Link from the Andy McFadden CD-R FAQ.
posted by darukaru at 6:03 AM on April 30, 2001

Isn't putting a tax on all CD burners because some people use them to pirate music and/or software, pretty much like like putting a tax on cars because some people use them in bank robberies? (That's probably been said before, by someone else)
posted by frednorman at 6:27 AM on April 30, 2001

Well, given the choice between accepting a burner/media tax and losing home recording rights, I know which one I'll take. (Although I doubt I'll be given the choice, and that's the worst part of all.)
posted by darukaru at 6:32 AM on April 30, 2001

Under fair use guidelines of the US copyright law, we have the right to make one copy (for personal use) of any copyrighted material that we own (i.e. bought and paid for). Unless they change fair use guidelines, they cannot take away your "home recording rights."
posted by karenh at 7:26 AM on April 30, 2001

Unfortunately, "home recording rights" become pointless if the technology to exercise those rights is taken away from us. And that's what the industry is working toward: DRM built into the hardware (such as hard drives).
posted by jburka at 8:23 AM on April 30, 2001

darukaru:>Well, given the choice between accepting a burner/media tax and losing home recording rights, I know which one I'll take. (Although I doubt I'll be given the choice, and that's the worst part of all.)

you probably voted for al gore, too.

the riaa's next step is to implement copyright protections on guitars, pianos, and other popular musical instruments to prevent anyone playing a song for which they haven't paid the appropriate licensing fees to the copyright owner. buy your accordians now - before it's too late!
posted by dukejohnson at 11:18 AM on April 30, 2001

As long as it's digital it's subject to copying. The dirty little secret about technology is that there is no absolute security.

All these efforts ammount to a delaying tactic. Piracy of software has shown this clearly. It has also shown that people will support software companies that make good software. There are enough honest people out there to keep the recording, music, movie, and software industries in business. It comes down to an accountant mentality about trying to get every penny out of the public so you can get a new Benz every year. Another dirty little truth.
posted by john at 11:48 AM on April 30, 2001

I still say that, although industry folk are being indefensibly agressive, if we, a) agree stealing is wrong, and b) want to be able to use copyrighted material for which we've already paid, then it's in our best interest to help come up with ideas. Continually saying, "You're wrong!" doesn't make one any more right. If a solution is devised whereby we can freely use product which we've purchased, but whereby it can't be bootlegged, then I imagine we'll all be happy. All except those insist it's their right to steal.
posted by DanJr at 2:24 PM on April 30, 2001

I still say that, although industry folk are being indefensibly agressive, if we, a) agree stealing is wrong, and b) want to be able to use copyrighted material for which we've already paid, then it's in our best interest to help come up with ideas. Continually saying, "You're wrong!" doesn't make one any more right. If a solution is devised whereby we can freely use product which we've purchased, but whereby it can't be bootlegged, then I imagine we'll all be happy. All except those insist it's their right to steal.
posted by DanJr at 2:24 PM on April 30, 2001

Unfortunately (or not,) that's impossible. Unless significant changes are made to the hardware on your computer, it will always be possible to copy digital data.
Wherever it's stored, you can always just copy it bit by bit. Unless the media is tied to the platform, I don't think there's any way around it.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:49 PM on April 30, 2001

There is a similar tax (at least in the U.S.) on blank audio cassette tapes and music CDRs. The logic being that these media are primarily used to make copies of copyrighted works. I'm with darukaru - this seems like it would be a fair trade-off. This isn't about the entertainment industry losing money - it's about it not making MORE money. Napster increased CD sales, most people don't bother to copy videotapes because the retail price is low enough that they prefer to have an original with the graphics, QC, etc. Music CDs could retail for $6 and be profitable, DVDs for $10. But the companies control the distribution channels to keep the prices high. That is the control they're really worried about. I think almost everyone would happily pay a subscription fee for unfettered Napster access. $10-$15 a month? Fine. I don't expect to get something for free. Eventually entertainment companies will have to wake up and realize that digital distribution is here to stay, people are willing to pay a reasonable amount for entertainment, and they will have to adjust their profit expectations and distribution models to accommodate new technology - not fight it at every turn.
posted by sixdifferentways at 12:26 PM on May 1, 2001

As John Naughton said, it's time that someone stood up to the RIAA. And I'd rather it was a ground-up "fuck you" to these litigious ingrates.
posted by holgate at 1:38 PM on May 1, 2001