Gateway
April 11, 2002 3:17 PM Subscribe
Gateway asks, "Like this song? Download it for free from Gateway.com. Burn it on to a CD" Gateway is launching an ad campaign against the CBDTPA bill. They are supporting users to download and burn legal mp3's. Maybe now it is time for the RIAA to wake up and see that they can't stop technology. Watch the ad with Gateway CEO Ted Waitt here.
That was surprisingly painless to download the Elwood mp3, I didn't have to enter my email or enable cookies or anything like that, just right-click and select "save target as". Too bad it wasn't in ogg format, or an ID3v2 tag would be nice.
posted by bobo123 at 3:37 PM on April 11, 2002
posted by bobo123 at 3:37 PM on April 11, 2002
Sounds like no one likes the CBDTPA bill:
"The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has also held hearings on the issue, has received more than 3,500 comments criticizing the bill, a spokeswoman said.
We haven't received one e-mail in support of the Hollings bill," said Judiciary Committee spokeswoman Mimi Devlin. "It seems like there's a groundswell of support from regular users.""
(from this article, via scott)
posted by mathowie at 3:52 PM on April 11, 2002
"The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has also held hearings on the issue, has received more than 3,500 comments criticizing the bill, a spokeswoman said.
We haven't received one e-mail in support of the Hollings bill," said Judiciary Committee spokeswoman Mimi Devlin. "It seems like there's a groundswell of support from regular users.""
(from this article, via scott)
posted by mathowie at 3:52 PM on April 11, 2002
Oh yea, the RIAA response. Because everyone believes the RIAA is right, don't they? They should be able to charge for media changes of music, right? I should stop be a sarcastic bastard now, right? ;-)
posted by benjh at 4:20 PM on April 11, 2002
posted by benjh at 4:20 PM on April 11, 2002
I agree with you benjh, because I make music, art, etc [read content]. My biggest complaint with the RIAA, MPAA and many other acronyms is the sheer arrogance in which they operate. I WANT digital music and I WILL pay for it. But there is no product for me to buy. And they want to criminalize what I do every time I buy a CD – I rip it to MP3 so I can listen to it on my computer and my Walkman. I bought the damn CD, and as long as I only listen to it, I see no reason to restrict my right.
It seems simple to me here in the peanut seats.
posted by plemeljr at 4:50 PM on April 11, 2002
It seems simple to me here in the peanut seats.
posted by plemeljr at 4:50 PM on April 11, 2002
Son, get me my hip-boots, Hilary Rosen is talking again.
posted by eyeballkid at 5:21 PM on April 11, 2002
posted by eyeballkid at 5:21 PM on April 11, 2002
* notices slime on browser from inadvertently visiting RIAA web site *
* changes browser *
posted by yhbc at 7:56 PM on April 11, 2002
* changes browser *
posted by yhbc at 7:56 PM on April 11, 2002
Hilary Rosen obviously wasn't paying attention: "If Gateway truly believed that illegal copying hurts all artists and labels who make the music we enjoy, they wouldn't be relying on these misleading scare tactics -- they'd be working with us to find a solution to the piracy problem."
I contend that Gateway is actually offering a suggestion - even a compromise - which they believe both the recording industry and the teeming masses could accept. In a nutshell, sell digital music by making it easier to get than stealing it, but only if you sign up for a "membership."
Had she actually gone to the webpage in question, she'd see that this Gateway publicity campaign is a veiled push for emusic.com, which has attempted to do the same for digital music that the Columbia House Record & Tape club has done with records, cassettes & CDs. You give the customer ten or twelve albums for a penny or less and then try to get them hooked on your "service."
Don't some drug dealers work this way? They offer the first ones for free and then once you're hooked on the stuff they reel in your life savings? I'm going on anecdotal evidence here. No personal experience. Correct me if I'm wrong.
For those who know how to download, music is presently almost as easy to get as air. Despite the RIAA's attempts to shut down Napster and similar systems, I'm still usually able to find online most any song I look for. It's a little harder than it used to be, but not by much. Any company insisting people stop filesharing music for free is like trying to bottle all the air on the planet and then insist people pay for the priviledge of breathing. Eventually they will succeed at this.
Check it. It's only a matter of time before somebody comes up with a way to 'purify' the air we breathe due to all the pollutants we've been putting in it over the centuries. Some company will invent and patent a big air purifying machine and plug it in and promise to keep all the air in your city clean but in return you'll have to pay them for the right to breathe it.
Don't laugh. Utility companies have successfully done it with water, which is just as necessary for human survival as air. Try going one day drinking only free water. It might be easier for you if you happen to own the land you live on and have a well. Anyone in a major metropolitan area either pays the local water company, or they pay rent to someone who has to pay a local water company. Then there's bottled water, which you have to pay for. Quite a brilliant racket. Technically you're paying not for water, but for the process that gets the water from some nearby lake to your sink.
With music, you're paying for the delivery system, but not for the music itself. You're paying your Internet Service Provider for the access to the music, but your ISP is not paying the royalties for you, nor should they. Eventually the Powers That Be will figure out who to charge for the music itself, and how to accomplish that. Emusic.com is one possible way to do it. However, this doesn't stop the flow of the music. So they'll eventually come up with a licensing system. If you want to provide music to people through your server, or off your own home computer, you'll have to get some kind of license, which means paying taxes to the government for it and also paying the royalties for the music you provide. Anyone who doesn't get a license will be seen as outside the law, and they'll become criminals.
Don't laugh. They've done it with moonshine. They've done it with guns. They'll eventually do it to music. They call it regulation. Is this is the price we pay for freedom? I'm gonna laugh on the day they tell me that all the CDs of stored mp3s I've collected are "contraband" and must be destroyed.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:53 AM on April 14, 2002
I contend that Gateway is actually offering a suggestion - even a compromise - which they believe both the recording industry and the teeming masses could accept. In a nutshell, sell digital music by making it easier to get than stealing it, but only if you sign up for a "membership."
Had she actually gone to the webpage in question, she'd see that this Gateway publicity campaign is a veiled push for emusic.com, which has attempted to do the same for digital music that the Columbia House Record & Tape club has done with records, cassettes & CDs. You give the customer ten or twelve albums for a penny or less and then try to get them hooked on your "service."
Don't some drug dealers work this way? They offer the first ones for free and then once you're hooked on the stuff they reel in your life savings? I'm going on anecdotal evidence here. No personal experience. Correct me if I'm wrong.
For those who know how to download, music is presently almost as easy to get as air. Despite the RIAA's attempts to shut down Napster and similar systems, I'm still usually able to find online most any song I look for. It's a little harder than it used to be, but not by much. Any company insisting people stop filesharing music for free is like trying to bottle all the air on the planet and then insist people pay for the priviledge of breathing. Eventually they will succeed at this.
Check it. It's only a matter of time before somebody comes up with a way to 'purify' the air we breathe due to all the pollutants we've been putting in it over the centuries. Some company will invent and patent a big air purifying machine and plug it in and promise to keep all the air in your city clean but in return you'll have to pay them for the right to breathe it.
Don't laugh. Utility companies have successfully done it with water, which is just as necessary for human survival as air. Try going one day drinking only free water. It might be easier for you if you happen to own the land you live on and have a well. Anyone in a major metropolitan area either pays the local water company, or they pay rent to someone who has to pay a local water company. Then there's bottled water, which you have to pay for. Quite a brilliant racket. Technically you're paying not for water, but for the process that gets the water from some nearby lake to your sink.
With music, you're paying for the delivery system, but not for the music itself. You're paying your Internet Service Provider for the access to the music, but your ISP is not paying the royalties for you, nor should they. Eventually the Powers That Be will figure out who to charge for the music itself, and how to accomplish that. Emusic.com is one possible way to do it. However, this doesn't stop the flow of the music. So they'll eventually come up with a licensing system. If you want to provide music to people through your server, or off your own home computer, you'll have to get some kind of license, which means paying taxes to the government for it and also paying the royalties for the music you provide. Anyone who doesn't get a license will be seen as outside the law, and they'll become criminals.
Don't laugh. They've done it with moonshine. They've done it with guns. They'll eventually do it to music. They call it regulation. Is this is the price we pay for freedom? I'm gonna laugh on the day they tell me that all the CDs of stored mp3s I've collected are "contraband" and must be destroyed.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:53 AM on April 14, 2002
« Older Google opens SOAP interface. | Subway Passengers: Underground Portraits From Ten... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by futureproof at 3:33 PM on April 11, 2002