[marvin]

Really, I wish people would stop dicking around with piracy and copy protection. If you don't like copy protection, boycott or contact your reps.

/And no, piracy instead of purchasing does not count as boycotting.

 

[wafflesomd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdelayer /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am sick of hearing this 'legal backup' crap. You all know exactly what this key is going to be used for, quit trying to justify it.

I'm not sure why ppl are bashing this post, it has the most truth to it out of all the posts here.

 

[ThomasJB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wafflesomd /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure why ppl are bashing this post, it has the most truth to it out of all the posts here.

What truth?
There are many reasons to break copy protection, not just making backups. For example, I often rip DVDs to my laptop hard drive, because if I want to watch them somewhere I don't have power, using the DVD drive drains the batteries very fast, whereas using the hard drive increases battery life significantly.
And, I do all this in Linux. What does that make me, some kind of evil cracker? I'm not sure how stupid laws like the DMCA get passed, anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Really, I wish people would stop dicking around with piracy and copy protection. If you don't like copy protection, boycott or contact your reps. /And no, piracy instead of purchasing does not count as boycotting.

No one will listen to me, I'm not even 18 yet. Anyway, I only buy used CDs and DVDs for this very reason. Also, most people don't care, there isn't much incentive for more than a small minority of consumers to become informed about these issues.

And don't even get me started on those anti-piracy notices they put on every DVD that you can't skip("You wouldn't steal a television..."), region coding, etc. What is happening is that the **AA is trying to justify their extortion with stupid laws, and no one has the power or the motivation to take a stand against them.

 

[Superpredator]

If I've followed things correctly in recent months (I did a lot of reading after I bought Windows Vista

), fair use still applies to digital media, and it is legal in some circumstances. What's new, however, is that circumventing DRM isn't. So if I buy an HD-DVD, traditionally interpreted fair use says that I can legally back this media up for my own private use (storing MP3s on a DAP, for instance). However, breaking the DRM is illegal. Something seems immensely bizarre here. It would appear to me that digital media copyright owners decided to come at the situation from a new angle. Since there was already precedent on the books making it rather difficult to challenge fair use, they cooked up a lovely scheme to add a new factor into the equation.

[size=xx-small](if I'm mistaken on any of the above, I don't shy away from enlightenment)[/size]

Considering how rampant file sharing has become, I think it's foolish to hate on members of the RIAA/MPAA for wanting to protect their investments. I also think it's fundamentally dumb to assume that every stolen file or movie translates into a lost sale. There are many thousands of things I would accept for free (steal, if you'd like) but never in a hundred million years consider paying for. If the RIAA wants to consider me a criminal because I download all music before buying anything, they're welcome to. But if that's the only way I have to navigate the labyrinth of one-hit-wonders and craptastic sophomore releases that its members instituted long ago in an effort to disentangle me from my money, so be it. That's my personal position, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

But, to defend the RIAA/MPAA as though they are these benevolent associations who just want to stop having their profit stolen from billions of heinous criminals worldwide--well, grow up. If the RIAA/MPAA could devise a scheme to have you pay for the same file four times to consume it on four different devices, they absolutely would. Stop treating these associations as though they aren't out to **** you. It reminds me of the psychology that causes a torture victim to identify with his capturers. You're hooraying as you're being divorced of your rights, and that is frankly just not what the world needs right now.

http://www.eff.org/IP/fairuse/

 

[YamiTenshi]

Aside from all the legal issues (which I find interesting, but don't want to get this thread locked) there's also the social issues. Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that Digg (Kevin Rose) had to bow down to the storm of people that demanded it keep this code up? I'm all for freedom of speech/information but this seemed a bit extreme; angry mobs aren't always right you know.

 

[blinx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by YamiTenshi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Aside from all the legal issues (which I find interesting, but don't want to get this thread locked) there's also the social issues. Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that Digg (Kevin Rose) had to bow down to the storm of people that demanded it keep this code up? I'm all for freedom of speech/information but this seemed a bit extreme; angry mobs aren't always right you know.

well the digg members were proving that kevin rose couldn't get into trouble for what the users posted on his website.

 

[wanderman]

I want to back up my movies and stream them around my home and now I can do it...

 

[Joshatdot]

i guess my fake "Got <insert code here> ?" shirt is not allowed to post?

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EFF.com Tired of the entertainment industry treating you like a criminal for wanting to share music and movies online? We are too -- EFF is fighting for a constructive solution that gets artists paid while making file sharing legal. The RIAA's and MPAA's irrational war on P2P is not generating a single penny for artists. In fact, despite lawsuits against many P2P providers and over 20,000 music and movie fans, file sharing is more popular than ever. Yet the lawsuits have forced ordinary Americans to pay thousands of dollars to music and movie industry lawyers, while many innocent individuals have been caught in the crossfire. What's more, the entertainment industry has threatened innovation in P2P systems and many other tools that help you get more from your media.

That's why I don't support the EFF.

Why shouldn't the RIAA/MPAA be able to treat thieves like criminals? I agree that felony copyright infringement for non-commercial purposes is blatantly absurd, and that it's a horrifically bad law that should be overturned immediately. But, like it or not, downloading/P2P of IP that you don't have a license for is theft and it should be treated as such. The EFF doesn't see it that way, and I strongly disagree.

/Personally, I figure the prevailing rate, $1/song, $20/DVD, + 100% fine is a fair penalty.

Sure, they're out to maximize profit, but guess what, you're the consumer. You don't like what they're selling? Go somewhere else, or don't go at all. They'll learn PDQ, just like everyone else.

 

[Arainach]

The RIAA/MPAA don't just treat thieves like criminals, they treat their consumers like criminals, and THAT'S what's being fought.

 

[GlendaleViper]

Sorry to be curt, but this (admittedly difficult) issue will continue to spin its wheels, as long as the majority of vocal supporters and its opposition retain this flood of ignorant, knee-jerk rhetoric.

There is a compromise to be found here, but it will remain undiscovered so long as:

1) The RIAA/MPAA continue to guard their own coffers with an iron fist instead of innovating for future profitability, and

2) We stop acting like perfect little angels and fess up to the rampant piracy involved here.

 

[Superpredator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure, they're out to maximize profit, but guess what, you're the consumer. You don't like what they're selling? Go somewhere else, or don't go at all. They'll learn PDQ, just like everyone else.

I think you are missing something drastically important here. There was music long, long, long before the RIAA came along. One could easily argue that music is an essential part of human existence. The RIAA has and is taking numerous steps to intervene in what might simply be a shift in the way the consumer or listener accesses the music he or she likes. I'm no expert, but the possibility of listeners having more direct contact with a broader range of artists seems highly likely. It happened to information, and it wants to happen to music (see Wil Wheaton's Geek In Review for a simple explanation as to why). Unfortunately for the RIAA this new dynamic might make it obsolete and at the very least make its members less dominant, less wealthy and less meaningful.

The RIAA may have turned music into a product over the last half-century, but I don't believe this is music's natural state. The product is unraveling as product. The RIAA has not been playing fair for some time (e.g., Clear Channel) and has more recently begun to play dirty (e.g., the attack on Internet radio). The flailing of arms that it's demonstrating right now is pathetic in a way, but not without a pervasive invasiveness that many people worldwide are simply reacting to the only way they know how--by being human beings.

A consumer of music can certainly simply choose not to buy the RIAA's music, and the RIAA might feel the sting. In an ideal world, the RIAA would feel it and attempt to accommodate the consumer's desires (e.g., EMI releasing higher quality, DRM-free tracks through iTunes).

Unfortunately the RIAA has gone to such drastic lengths over the years to ensure that, even if the consumer isn't happy with the RIAA's offerings, there is so little in the way of accessible alternatives that it doesn't matter, the consumer can listen to an RIAA CD or go find a conch shell. This has basically been the RIAA's business model all along, and it is betting on it now more than ever. The Internet, and with it online retailers, Internet radio, social networks and pirated music has put the squeeze on the RIAA big time. It's not the "stolen" files that are its biggest concern, but rather the change in dynamic from a system controlled primarily by its members to one where anyone who wants to make music can (sort of) openly compete. I'm sure it's got to be more than a little embarrassing to the RIAA that it has far less of a clue what people want to listen to than anyone else.

In my opinion, engaging the RIAA as a good little consumer has gone completely out the window. It's one thing to interact with a fleet of corporations when everyone plays by the rules, but the RIAA is attempting to rewrite the rules, preventing society's relationship to music from undergoing a normal, healthy metamorphosis. In a free market economy, consumers dictating the market is part of the natural order. So is entire industries crumbling to the ground because they refuse to adapt. The RIAA is subverting this process, and attempting to lock the consumer into a market it controls. Very, very shady. Music wants to be music, not a product. Evidentially a lot of people want it to be music again, too. The RIAA didn't invent music. It needs to stand out of the way or the pendulum is going to knock it on its ass.

 

[Ice Max]

Solution:get rid of DRM all together

 

[GlendaleViper]

SP - very well though out post, but I have some concerns about how you may be viewing music itself, fundamentally. It sounds like you side with the camp that feels music is a right, not a priviledge.

I would assume you do not, in fact, feel that way, but for now let me say that no matter how well thought out any criticism of the RIAA may be, to completely seperate them from the rest of the music industry at large would be folly.

Firstly, like it or not, the RIAA is responsible for the music industry and the proliferation of music at large. I will repeat again that, in no way do I support the antics of this Jurassic entity. I do, however, feel that it would be unjustified to hold a position that they are not entitled to a piece of their own pie. Much of the problem, of course, lies with wanting the whole pan, not just a slice.

Secondly, to consider music a basic right is a WONDERFUL idea, seriously. But until artists get funded by private tycoons, monarchs or governments, (which would limit exposure and indeed variety, proliferation and possibly freedom of expression), it's not the case. Artists do not work for free, nor should they be expected to.

The curiosity here is that artists are getting more exposure than ever, via RIAA supported outlets and those outlets the RIAA claims are hurting them. The argument goes back and forth that the artists aren't the ones being hurt by the proliferation of digital media and P2P, just the RIAA. Well, that's fine and I don't really disagree. In my opinion, most of what's happening with this issue is brought on by the RIAA themselves through their unwavering (and often bizarre) tactics. But I pose a question to you, hopefully to quash an ideal or at least bring it into reality:

Eventually, the RIAA is going to fold, or come to an agreement. If they fold, then what? Free music for everyone? That's fine until the music itself goes bankrupt and the industry collapses due to lack of support. And if the music continues to be made? Don't think for one second that some of these divinely "entitled" and unbelievably vocal people on the other side of the fence won't continue to try to justify their piracy like some anonymous misguided Robin Hood. There will always be a "Man" to stick it to.

Somewhere, right in the middle, there is a compromise waiting to be struck. One where access to music (and our options on how to store/view/listen to it) is limited only by our ability to hunt it down. With some of the royalty schemes being offered right now (many quashed by our favourite entity; internet radio, anyone?), there is certainly hope. But music is not, and should not be free. It is entertainment. It is a soul enriching human construct and perhaps the most divine of all humanity's creations. If you like it, support it. Period.

HOW you pay for it is the real question and one that will eventually be answered in a way that satisfies everyone, not just those with a heavy-handed agenda on either side of the camp.

And for the record, I will gladly continue to purchase music with my own money, rather than see the production and distribution of music go free, at the expense of advertising sponsorship. I am all for the dissolution of the RIAA, but not without a plan in action to ensure the entire music industry doesn't fall with it.

 

[Superpredator]

GV, thanks for entering into a dialog with me. I love dialogs!

First of all, my claim that music is integral to human life stems from recently published articles that delve into what, exactly, was at play in shaping human beings into the music lovers that we tend to be. See this one for example.

I do view music as a fundamental right for human beings. However, in the same way that access to water should be a basic right, this does not at all mean that compensation for access isn't appropriate and necessary. You can either dig the well yourself or compensate someone to do it for you. So with music.

Just to be clear, I admire the wily antics and philosophical expression of the people over at The Pirate Bay. However, subscribing to the idea that music should be free is pretty dumb. Maybe if the world had taken a different course, but we are where we are, and you gotta pay for stuff here. I myself download a fair amount of music (I'll let you infer the methods). What I like, I buy in CD form. What I dislike, I delete or forget about completely.

In a Clear Channel landscape where Internet radio might soon be going the way of the dinosaur, how is it exactly that I'm supposed to hear music that I might actually want to buy? I haven't--and I kid you not--listened to FM radio (other than NPR and Howard Stern) since 2003. Not a second of it. I can't say I don't listen to top 40 material because I honestly don't even know what it is anymore. I suspect I don't even come close.

Judging by the tone the RIAA has created in the past few years, I feel like I wouldn't be far off in speculating that my finding music without the RIAA's guidance is, in and of itself, a threat to the beloved entity. The correlation between RIAA sales being down and file sharing being up does not prove causation. Could it be that as the RIAA tried to force feed consumers that which made the RIAA money, a substantial number of consumers simply lost interest? Now with the Internets, all of a sudden we can find music we actually like, and so we do. And then RIAA sales drop even more, and it clamps down even harder, and even more people lose interest in its offerings.

Real music is a product of human culture and is not the cold, stale product that the RIAA wants it to be. I truly feel like reducing it to mere entertainment is in error; music is not Mission Impossible 2. I don't feel entertained when I listen to music. I feel like a part of myself is awakened. Music hits a spot in me like nothing else can. That's evidence enough to me that music is not something to be body slammed down our throats like everything else we consume. It is something to take natural shape as innovators and listeners change over time. I think we should be able to exert some influence on what it is, and I think the RIAA would much prefer that we get on board and listen to the same 40 songs as everyone else.

The music landscape is like a diverse creek running through the woods. This creek naturally carves out new paths for itself, sometimes changing directions completely, sometimes forking off in two different directions at once. The RIAA has tried to tend the banks all along, and became remarkably adept at it prior to the coming of the Internet as we know it today. This new scene is like a new fork in the creek, obviously with some serious rapids. The RIAA seems to be responding by erecting concrete barriers to keep the creek running straight, narrow, boring and under its control. People may continue to buy music while rafting their way down snore creek, but the cultural significance of music is sapped away for the benefit of, as you said, the RIAA's coffers.

You bring up some good questions. Compensation is key. I also won't delude myself--I'm sure there are plenty of people out there just plain stealing music. But as I've said before, a stolen file does not necessarily translate into a lost sale. And in many cases, a temporarily borrowed (

) file does turn into a sale.

The RIAA's members may have once played a critical role in disseminating music, but they have since turned into a cold, faceless corporate conglomerate. They took their collective finger off the pulse. If the RIAA falls apart tomorrow music stands absolutely no chance of going with it. As I said, the RIAA didn't invent music. Music will be around as long as there are people. And if the RIAA disappears or is at least weakened to the point where it is no longer able to push politicians to push its agenda, the playing field suddenly gets a lot greener for everyone else. This isn't going to magically happen if everyone stops paying for music, but with the Internet and file sharing suddenly I get to chase down, for example, bands like Destroyer. After a few downloaded albums I promptly bought his entire discography straight from Merge. This system has an incredibly broad reach and creates a much more level playing field than corporate radio. I think it should be obvious even to the most casual observer that this is what the RIAA fears most.