Thought-of-the-Day: Music Industry

[jocko_nc]

Just an observation I wanted to throw out there for fun...

I bought the "new" Eagles concert DVD the other day. "Farewell I", recorded in Austrailia 2003. Man, have I have enjoyed the crap out that! It is a fantastic record of fantastic artists doing their thing. (Joe Walsh is prominent, he provided the edge to that group, IMO). It is a fantastic product. Whatever I paid for it, it was a bargain. That DVD is easily worth $100.00 for anyone who grew up an Eagles fan. Way better than a concert ticket, which you will easily NOT get for $100.00...

That got me thinking about the business side of music: All the hoopla regarding copyrights, digital security, Limewire and the like. I have to admit, I looked around Limewire and found some great material. It was fun. (Naturaly, I followed all copyright laws...)

Now, think how absurd it is to use the law to fight individual behaviour with content that is so pervasive and technology that is so widespread. Much of the music has been around for decades, countless radio airings and millions of copies sold. Many consumers will have owned several copies of the same product, LP to Cassette to CD. The record companies sell the same product again and again and again, despite the fact that technology has advanced to the point where their product is technical child's play. Find yourself outpaced and in trouble? Call in the lawyers. Put malicious code on the CD's. Compromise people's property. Whatever you do, don't improve your product or innovate anything at all. Milk it for all it is worth.

Which takes me back to the Eagles DVD: The artists and record lables can make a ton of money if they provide more value. Move forward with creativity and innovation. Don't look backwards and fight the consumer under the cover of a sweeping b.s. digital copyright law. (Don't believe it is b.s. law? Look it up.) The technology certainly exists, providing a medium for both superior content and advanced security. Consumers will pay up. I certainly will. I will not, however, pay to replace my third copy of Rumors, which I have owned for two decades.

jocko

Oh yea...

copyright 2006 by jocko_nc
Use any or all of this text in a reply and you violate copyright law. Take that.

[noddin0ff]

Text deleted in accordance with real or imagined law.







Interesting thoughts. I certainly have my own slippery moral slope so my comments are for the sake of argument. You said you wouldn't pay to replace your Rumors album. Why? If you lost a book that you really wanted to read, wouldn't you willingly buy a replacement. Or what if you lost a painting you bought from a local artist? You wouldn't feel entitled to have one magically delivered from the ether to compensate you for your negligence, would you? If an artist sells you a painting and you lose it, should a team of 3rd party painters crank out duplicates with no compensation going to the original artist?

I'm all for Fair Use (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html). But part of the copyright considerations are "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." I read this as - if you adversely affect the value of the work and the artists profits derived from sales of this work then it is is not fair use." I don't see downloading pirated copys of things to replace what you lose as fair use.

I don't agree with the DCMA and the criminalization of copyright circumvention (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:2:./temp/~c105aC5GCf:e10759:) but I do think artists have a right to try to protect their work as long as opportunities for fair use are allowed. I think we're slowly converging on something acceptable.

Also since I'm rambling... I think you make a good point about adding value. But personally, I don't want more 'value' added. If I want to listen to a recording of an accoustic performer or a string quartet I really don't want menus and bells and whistles and multiple camera angles and extended interviews and 4 minutes of disclaimers as to why the opionions expressed don't represent the views of the 30,000 people who work for Sony. I just want music. Unfortunately, music is easy to copy...but not for long.

[bacchanal]

Well as long as you can play it back, there will be a way to copy it...

Anyway here is a pretty entertaining read about how the MPAA is being sued for making a copy of a film.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2149223/mpaa-accused-piracy

[jocko_nc]

How about if I make a copy for myself? For the car, as a backup, or if my "original" gets damaged. All that is illegal now. What's next? How about smartchips in our guitars, to make sure we are not playing "Stairway to Heaven"? Thats a violation, too.

Make a better product and make it valuable. Consumers are crying out for it, money in hand. Look at all the equipment we are buying, we need worthy content. I could care less about the bells and whistles, my point with the Eagles DVD is that the sound in 5.1 is fantastic. It really sounds great, and I am a music guy to the core.

MP3's of 25 year-old tracks are out in the public domain, get over it.

jocko

[noddin0ff]

How about if I make a copy for myself? For the car, as a backup, or if my "original" gets damaged. All that is illegal now. What's next? How about smartchips in our guitars, to make sure we are not playing "Stairway to Heaven"? Thats a violation, too.

Make a better product and make it valuable. Consumers are crying out for it, money in hand. Look at all the equipment we are buying, we need worthy content. I could care less about the bells and whistles, my point with the Eagles DVD is that the sound in 5.1 is fantastic. It really sounds great, and I am a music guy to the core.

MP3's of 25 year-old tracks are out in the public domain, get over it.

jocko

So there's a fine distinction here. It is completely legal to make a copy for yourself. That's fair use. Technically if you lose/sell the original you should destroy the copy.

What is not legal is to defeat digital copy protection. If you could duplicate without defeating the digital encryption scheme, then it is legal copying (provided the use is fair use). Of course, this is near impossible, and that's why I don't agree with the DMCA. But, it is not illegal. And as bacchanal points out, you can make your copies the old fashioned analog way and re-digitize them. They just wont be bit-for-bit perfect copies. And, of course, the Industy would like to know why you need to make a perfect bit-for-bit copy when you can purchase.

[nightflier]

I think what Jocko is trying to point out, is that what was previously considered fair use is now being eroded away and criminalized. Fair use has been in Sony's crosshairs ever since it passed into law. You'd think the CEO's are still seeking some kind of revenge against the consumers after all these years. When did I become the bad guy?

What smacks of hipocrisy is that what an individual gets sent to jail for, the companies can just pay their way out of, such as that #$@% rootkit software. Or the fact that we are still paying a fee whenever we purchase blank media, but our right to copy under fair use is all but gone. That's right, for every blank CD we purchase, part of the cost goes to Sony, even though the majority of these disks are used for computer data. It's as if Sony assumes every consumer is a criminal.

And why is it that if I own a track on an LP or cassette, I am not entitled to download a free compressed version (usually of lower quality) for my own fair use? Apparently a digital copy is not an analog copy, even if I use all analog gear, according to Sony. If they could own the word "digital" they would. Legally I can only rip it myself, but even that is something they tried to squash (fortunately they came too late to the party). I agree with Jocko that we are being asked to pay for the same thing over and over again. If the music companies had their way we would pay an additional monthly subscription fee just to continue to listen to the music we already owned (this may happen, still).

Additional content & features are nice, but the point is that if we don't want the additional stuff, there is no way for us to buy just the music w/o the fluf. In a few years the only format around will be DD, and buying a CD will be impossible, perhaps illegal. We are basically being forced to buy the fluf. Sort of like going to the hospital for an apendectomy and loosing a kidney because that is the only "package" deal available.

(I'm picking on Sony, 'cause they are by far the worst, but this is directed at the whole lot of 'em)

[dean_martin]

I'm limiting my comments to the Eagles dvd because it's been a long day (and week). I'm ready for some "light" conversation.

I've made a friend in the manager of an audio/video shop in a nearby city. The shop used to specialize in highend 2 ch gear, but now they've gone the way of home theater and installation. They dabble in stereo a little and the manager and I can talk stereo. But the last time I was in there he wanted to show me their new home theater demo room. All I can say is it was awesome. He played the Eagles dvd on a Mitsu projector and Anthem home theater setup. But to the dvd - I liked the Eagles many moons ago but got to the point where I couldn't stand them so I was a little disappointed that I was having to watch them on this great system. It didn't take long to get into it though. That Walsh reminded of the crazy uncle you can find in most families (you know you got one). Anyhow, it was enjoyable.

[Woochifer]

I think you're totally right with your point on adding value. I generally feel that the piracy issue is an excuse that the recording industry has grasped onto to explain why music sales are in a downward spiral.

I think a big and underreported part of the music industry's problem is that they hitched their wagon for so long to the CD gravy train, all the while jacking up prices and adding nothing new of value to what consumers buy. It was an arrogant and closed-minded attitude, because the music industry forgot that consumers have limited disposable income for entertainment. And this disposable income is the easiest type of spending to shift into other areas if consumers don't find value in what is being offered.

The CD format is now over 23 years old, while other competing entertainment options have exploded in the meantime. Just think about the state of entertainment in 1982 versus right now. Things that have come along since the introduction of the CD -- explosive growth with cable/satellite TV; majority of movie viewing now occurs with home video; four successive generations of video game consoles have come out; PCs are now in a majority of households; majority of households now have internet access, etc.

And I think in more recent years, the growth of the DVD has directly correlated to the decline of the CD. (the revenue figures for DVDs and CDs support this conclusion) The introduction of the DVD opened up a whole new range of entertainment options for consumers. The DVD format is interactive, it combined unprecedented video quality with (compared to VHS) with multichannel audio and widescreen capability, and consumers could choose that multimedia experience for not much more than the cost of an audio-only CD.

Rather than focus on disincentives to piracy, I think that the music industry has to focus on creating reasons for consumers to buy music again and justify the kinds of prices that they charge. Whether that involves legal downloads, music subscriptions, or adding value to CDs, they need to provide enhancements. And I think on that front, there are signs that the music industry is responding with all kinds of new extras being included with CDs.

Video and Multichannel Content
Metallica (one of the more prominent and outspoken foes of piracy) included a performance DVD with their latest album, and similar video content is frequently included with the new DualDiscs. Multichannel audio is another enhancement that has been included with more albums (unfortunately on DualDisc, the 5.1 mixes usually use the less than adequate DD format).

Stuff From The Vault
Other discs have repackaged older albums with newer bonus tracks. Great examples include adding John Coltrane's only concert recording of the complete A Love Supreme album to a re-release of that album, or for the first time ever making the entire concert from The Who's Live At Leeds available, not just the original songs chosen for the album.

Web Extras
Some CDs are now using the internet as an enticement. AC/DC's remastered series includes weblinks that can only be unlocked with the actual CD. Jazzanova's latest album was remixed into a continuous track that can only be downloaded off their website, and the CD is needed to access that site. Jazzanova even included an imprinted blank CD that consumers can use to burn that downloaded mix onto.

$18 CDs that only include two-channel music encoded using 70's era digital technology are no longer sustainable compared to more interactive entertainment options such as DVD and video games. In light of those market conditions, the music industry IMO has no choice but to either lower prices to stimulate demand or provide higher value to justify the prices they want to charge.

I also agree with the premise that was forwarded about a year ago on a PBS Frontline documentary The Way The Music Died discussing the "perfect storm" that has hit the music industry. Everything from the unsustainable growth that the LP-to-CD transition created, to consolidation in radio, to the "Wal-Mart effect", to piracy, was discussed as a causal factor. It doesn't discuss competition from other forms of entertainment, I think it otherwise presents a fairly comprensive view.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/

[r m]

Price & Reputation.

The music industry has a reputation for making a lot of money for the record companies themselves with little consideration for what is in the best interests of the buying public.

It is obvious to most CD purchasers that the price charged for a music CD is much higher than the cost to create that CD. If you break it down into individual elements per CD, i.e. cost of disc, cost of putting music on disc, payment to artist, payment to retailer, payment to record company the price charged per CD seems high.

The price of the product directly influences my purchasing decisions. When CD's are sold for £15 or more I don't buy them. I am prepared to buy CD's at £10 as I feel this is a reasonable price for the product.

I feel the music industry has shot itself in the foot by maintaining a higher price for CD's. At £10 per CD I would have been happy to buy two or more discs per month whereas I choose to spend my money elsewhere at present.


Will There Be A Demise In The Quality Of Music Available?

One advantage of the CD format is that the quality of the music provided is pretty good. As copy controlled discs (i.e. not proper Redbook CD's) and downloading of MP3 standard music increases will we still be able to buy music which will meet a decent quality standard.

If I go into a music shop I want to buy a CD quality CD. I don't want to buy a copy controlled disc which does not meet the CD quality controls. Phillips (who have the copyright for CD's) have said that they don't think the record companies will persist with copy control software as it is not an effective control on piracy. I wonder if CD's will have been replaced in a few years time with music bought online and downloaded to our home computers, Ipods, etc.


Copy Controlled Discs - What To Do?

If you buy a copy controlled disc take it back to the shop and say it doesn't work in your car cd player / dvd player rather than accept it is a substitute for a proper Redbook CD.

It seems to me that copy controlled discs will damage the music industry and customer confidence in that industry. Currently the record companies are getting away with selling copy controlled discs as the public is ignorant of the difference - they think they are buying a CD. Having read a reasonable amount on this topic it seems to me that a way of sending a message to the record companies would be to have an International "Don't Buy Music Day". A publicity blitz followed by a strong show of support with people not purchasing music on the day would send a very strong message to the record industry that the general public, the consumers, have a powerful voice and ultimately pays the bill / creates the profits.

[paul_pci]

Something Wooch said, really resonated with me and that is comparing the pricing and history of CDs to DVDs. I bought more and more DVDs as the prices went down and down to $10 or even lower, yet the prices for CDs seem to be going up, or more realistically, stagnating. I'm a big fan of the 80s but I laugh when they want almost $20 for a "vintage" 80s band CD that's not even remastered when I can go out and get 2 movies for that price tag. I'd say they must think we're stupid, but denial is a powerful set of lenses. Frankly, that's why I have more movies than CDs.

[jocko_nc]

It seems to me that everyone got along fine with what was considered "fair use". However, fair use is out the window now that we are digital. I suspect DMCA will be taken to its extreme through either the greed or self-interest (depending upon how you look at it) of the industry.

Years ago, the entertainment industry went nuts over the impending debut of home VCR's. They argued, correctly, that the majority of use of these new devices will be for recording some type of copyrighted content. Thus, the devices should be banned. They took the arguement, I think, to the Supreme Court and ultimately lost. Enter the DMCA. The same argument was used once again by the entertainment industry against file-sharing services, that the majority of use was copyrighted material. The file-sharers argued precedence and the VCR ruling. This time, the outcome was different. DMCA expressly bans all technology that can be widely used to copy copyrighted material. With that logic, we never would have had VCR's.

Look at how the PC industry handles software copyrights and the mess that has created. I hope the music business does not follow suit, though I suspect they will. I hope I don't forced into a Microsoft amplifier someday! Hold on... I need to reboot the pre-amp.

The right approach is not to put out an inferior product and use the law to try to force the consumers to fly straight. Look at DirecTV. They put out a flawed product and everyone was hacking it. It was illegal to do so and they went full-bore with the lawyers. If the signal is there, human nature is to look for it. It was a mess. The ultimate solution was an improved system, more value and security.

jocko

[emorphien]

So there's a fine distinction here. It is completely legal to make a copy for yourself. That's fair use. Technically if you lose/sell the original you should destroy the copy.
Ahh but you see that's not necessarily legal anymore. They're restricting your right to make copies (or rip to MP3s). I have the original CDs and the only place they are used is in my home on a deck. MP3s are ripped to the computer and copies make their way to the car because the wild temperature swings and possibility of theft keep me from keeping original CDs in the car.

However now having all those copies for my use, and my use alone is becoming outlawed. Even making one copy is becoming questionable.

The RIAA is targeting the wrong thing as they're trying to fix the situation they built for themselves. I agree with the comment about movies, as they sit there and wait they drop in price and get to $10. I'll scoop up good DVDs for $10, I've got 4 suberbit movies I got for a total of $40 all together because Best Buy sells them at $10 a piece.

And I find it highly questionable that the RIAA and the companies it represents have lost even a tenth of the figures they claim to have lost. The other record companies not part of the RIAA aren't complaining in any fashion similar to the RIAA and that says something. The RIAA can continue to do so simply because of their size and position in the public eye.

[noddin0ff]

Ahh but you see that's not necessarily legal anymore. They're restricting your right to make copies (or rip to MP3s).

I disagree; they are not restricting your right to make copies. As Bacchanal suggested there are other ways to make copies. These are the same methods that have always been available for making copies...recording the analog output. Having or making copies is not illegal nor is it being criminalized. The music industry is, however, actively restricting the methods available to you.

Plus, the intent of copyright is not to create a right for individuals to freely and perfectly duplicate an artist’s work. No one expects to be able to manufacture duplicates of books they buy or art they own, or repress more LP's whenever one gets scratched. The only reason we expect to make perfect digital copies is because it is so very easy.

The purpose of copyright law comes from the U.S Constitution, Article I, Section 8 “Congress shall have the power to…provide for the general welfare of the United States… --To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” This clause is the only power granted to Congress in the Constitution that has a stated purpose – to promote science and art.

The exceptions to an artist’s limited use (i.e. your right to copy) are granted primarily to ensure the promotion of science and useful arts, by promoting education and learning. Not necessarily to promote your ability to create a perpetual archive of all the music you ever purchased.

Fair use is evaluated by four criteria
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Probably #2 and #4 really pertain to the digital age. Digital file sharing certainly hits these points. I confess to having lots of burned copies of CD’s that I don’t own. Maybe up to 100, I don’t know, I’ve never counted. I have 3 boxes in the basement with several hundred cassette copies of stuff. But I bought more music because they all let me hear stuff I liked, more than I would’ve bought otherwise. So maybe that means more support for artists. I don’t know. I never really considered it ‘fair use.’ I’ve always felt that I should really be buying albums and supporting artists.

As a person who has an avid copying history, I don’t like encryption or copy protection schemes. But I don’t begrudge the manufacture protecting their business by using them. I don’t think that ‘fair use’ as the law intended it is really impaired by copy protection schemes. The public has access to these materials in libraries and such.

But, Copy Protection is not the same as copyright. I pointedly disagree with criminalizing the defeating of encryption schemes. In my mind they are not the same thing. And impedes progress in science and art.

Oh, and IF you bothered to read this far…you might enjoy reading this
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php
An article on the development of copyright law and the difficulty in balancing the interests of the creators vs the public and the profit motive.

[nightflier]

it seems to me that a way of sending a message to the record companies would be to have an International "Don't Buy Music Day". A publicity blitz followed by a strong show of support with people not purchasing music on the day would send a very strong message to the record industry that the general public, the consumers, have a powerful voice and ultimately pays the bill / creates the profits.

Unfortunately, most do-not-buy days or similar movements directed at a single company or industry have largely been unsuccesful (the gasoline boycotts of the last few years come to mind). But that said, I do think people are voting with their pocket books. I only buy CD's second hand, on sale, or from companies that specialize in multichannel (Telarc). I only pay full price from artists selling their own stuff w/o a label, smaller independent labels such as Mapleshade, and that's it. The point is clear why should I pay $18 for a CD when I can get the DVD for the same price.

As fard as decades old music, I have long felt that it should have a sliding scale in price according to age. The idea that I have to pay $16 for 20 year old Coltrane CD that is exactly the same recording as my Coltrane LP is highway robbery. This is why I buy all the old stuff second-hand. I can find some great deals on eBay and second hand music sites (I bought 103 jazz CD's for $40, recently, and every disk was mint condition!).

For the record, I have been boycotting Metallica ever since they acted like such self-righteous jack***ses about music downloads. Several of my friends have too. I know this isn't going to affect their bottom line, but I hear that in Europe thousands of people are doing so too and there have even been protests at their concerts. I guess they have a little more of a conscience there.

[nightflier]

I disagree; they are not restricting your right to make copies. As Bacchanal suggested there are other ways to make copies. These are the same methods that have always been available for making copies...recording the analog output. Having or making copies is not illegal nor is it being criminalized. The music industry is, however, actively restricting the methods available to you.

Plus, the intent of copyright is not to create a right for individuals to freely and perfectly duplicate an artist’s work. No one expects to be able to manufacture duplicates of books they buy or art they own, or repress more LP's whenever one gets scratched. The only reason we expect to make perfect digital copies is because it is so very easy.

The purpose of copyright law comes from the U.S Constitution, Article I, Section 8 “Congress shall have the power to…provide for the general welfare of the United States… --To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” This clause is the only power granted to Congress in the Constitution that has a stated purpose – to promote science and art.

The exceptions to an artist’s limited use (i.e. your right to copy) are granted primarily to ensure the promotion of science and useful arts, by promoting education and learning. Not necessarily to promote your ability to create a perpetual archive of all the music you ever purchased.

Fair use is evaluated by four criteria
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Probably #2 and #4 really pertain to the digital age. Digital file sharing certainly hits these points. I confess to having lots of burned copies of CD’s that I don’t own. Maybe up to 100, I don’t know, I’ve never counted. I have 3 boxes in the basement with several hundred cassette copies of stuff. But I bought more music because they all let me hear stuff I liked, more than I would’ve bought otherwise. So maybe that means more support for artists. I don’t know. I never really considered it ‘fair use.’ I’ve always felt that I should really be buying albums and supporting artists.

As a person who has an avid copying history, I don’t like encryption or copy protection schemes. But I don’t begrudge the manufacture protecting their business by using them. I don’t think that ‘fair use’ as the law intended it is really impaired by copy protection schemes. The public has access to these materials in libraries and such.

But, Copy Protection is not the same as copyright. I pointedly disagree with criminalizing the defeating of encryption schemes. In my mind they are not the same thing. And impedes progress in science and art.

Oh, and IF you bothered to read this far…you might enjoy reading this
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php
An article on the development of copyright law and the difficulty in balancing the interests of the creators vs the public and the profit motive.

NoddinOff,

What color is the sun in your world? You seem to be noddin off right here. If I can't make a fair use didgital copy to enjoy the music in a different setting (let's say because I can't really play my turntable in my car, duh), then that's insane. I've made didgital copies of analog sources (mostly to fix the pops in out-of-print LP's) and you're telling me I shouldn't have the right to do this because it is now a digital copy. And yes, I use the MP3 file on my portable player and on my computer at work too. And now I'm a criminal?

This is just one of the many scenarios where your argument doesn't wash. Fair use is not just "to ensure the promotion of science and useful arts," whatever that means in practice, and that should be obvious, if not to you, then all the RIAA members who's music I'm no longer buying.

[noddin0ff]

NoddinOff,

What color is the sun in your world? You seem to be noddin off right here. If I can't make a fair use didgital copy to enjoy the music in a different setting (let's say because I can't really play my turntable in my car, duh), then that's insane. I've made didgital copies of analog sources (mostly to fix the pops in out-of-print LP's) and you're telling me I shouldn't have the right to do this because it is now a digital copy. And yes, I use the MP3 file on my portable player and on my computer at work too. And now I'm a criminal?

This is just one of the many scenarios where your argument doesn't wash. Fair use is not just "to ensure the promotion of science and useful arts," whatever that means in practice, and that should be obvious, if not to you, then all the RIAA members who's music I'm no longer buying.


I think you missed my point entirely. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Your sun is the same as mine, Epsilon Tauri, right?

First, I'm not telling you what you can or cannot do. And I'm not trying to make an argument. I'm trying to explain what the law is (as best I can), because many people don't quite get it. I suppose if I am trying to make an argument, it is that much of what you consider a Right about copying isn't really a Constitutionally granted Right, it's an assumed Right you take for granted.

The Constitution doesn’t guarantee us a right to make perfect digital copies to enjoy in our cars. Nor does it grant rights to make backups. That doesn't mean that its wrong to do so. But it also doesn't mean its wrong if a company tries to stop you from doing that either.

Yes, of course you can make digital copies. There is nothing at all wrong about using the digital realm. As I've tried to point out several times--Copyright and copy protection are not the same thing. You can make fair use copies of anything you want any way you want including digitally. What you describe is probably the 'fairest use' I can imagine. I suppose if you were educating young scientist about the history of Jazz while you played that copy in your car, it would be more ‘fair’.

The purpose of fair use as law is indeed "to ensure the promotion of science and useful arts" because that is the Constitutional mandate given to Congress who made the law. That's why Copyright exists in the first place, and that's why fair use also exists. That doesn't mean corporate America isn't trying to use/abuse it for profit. It is America afterall. Read that link on my last post.

The big HOWEVER is that it is illegal, thanks to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm). To circumvent encryption schemes used to prevent copying. If digital media is not encrypted then you can copy it seven ways to Tuesday. If it is digitally encrypted or has copy protection schemes, you may copy it if you can do so with out decrypting the code. But as you know, that's impossible to do. Therefore, copying copy-protected digital media is illegal. It's a dumb-ass law (http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm) and was as you might expect "supported by the software and entertainment industries, and opposed by scientists, librarians, and academics" hmmm....science and useful arts....

BUT, ****READ THIS**** copying media with digital copy protection is not illegal because of Copyrights or because you've violated 'fair use' (because you haven't) or because you do it digitally. It is illegal because you need to defeat a digital protection scheme.

[jocko_nc]

You sound correct, noddin0ff. The important point is that all digital information will be "protected" in some way and "fair use" goes away completely. As I read it, DMCA was written to make anything and everything related to digital encryption illegal. Something will have to give.

Here is where I see a huge problem coming: In the end, the only way to enforce these laws is for the copyright holders to be able monitor use of their content.

Devices designed to defeat encryption are wholly illegal. Disseminating information related to defeating encryption is wholly illegal. Dual-use devices and/or services, those that might or might not be used to defeat encryption, are not exempt from scrutiny. Copyright holders can argue to have them banned, shut down, filtered, or otherwise monitored in order to satisfy copyright obligations. Gnutella-based servers and several ISP's recently lost such arguements. This is also the probelm with HD format DVD's, the copyright holders are now playing hardball with copyright laws and the big stick of DMCA. How to make them comply? Make no mistake, under DMCA, CD-R and DVD-R technologioes probably would have never been released. Seriously, both are poster children for dual-use technology and the entertainment industry was asleep at the switch. Recall also, the same debate with the release of VCR's.

I see all future digital devices somehow plugged into the mother ship, with some sort of traceability to the copyright holder. Media married to only certain players. Serial numbers assigned. You have to call some office somewhere if you buy a new car so you can have the MP3 player registered. A gaint copyright network. Sounds like a bunch of crap to me.

Far fetched? I don't necessarily think so. That is precisely what the law requires and the copyright holders are pushing the issue. Court precedence is already headed in that direction. Where else can it go?

Extreme? Take a look at the originals in the world digital code and how they handled copyrights over the years: PC software. Everything feared above is already in place, much to the demise of the consumer. God, I don't want my music system to become like that. Maybe they can sell antivirus for our televisions? Streaming audio-pop-up ads when we play an album. Say it ain't so, Joe!

jocko

[Florian]

Very interesting thread and one we can all agree on. I personally have violated hundreds of copyright laws but i always spend my good money on a good product. I use the file sharing networks to download a few songs, just to see if i actually like more then just one song on the CD. There is so much junk out there and in germany espc. where the CD's cost 20$ upwards with no brochures or pictures, i just dont agree that i should flip the bill for poor remakes with no specials at all. The film and music industry is truly going downhill, and one look at MTV shows that. If they are giving me good recordings (MA Recordings as a example) with good music too boost and a nice brochure I'll pay for it and there would properbly be no need for digital rights managment. I think most people rip their music because they make their own mix CD because there are only one or two good songs on the CD. But of course, most of my listening is done with Vinyl and you cant copy that ;-)

[noddin0ff]

And just because I feel like ranting some more about bone-headed laws...The 'Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998" AKA the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.

Prior to 1976 Copyright holders were granted 28 years of exclusive rights with the possibility to extend another 28 years (56 total). In 1976, the United States Copyright Act of 1976, changed this to "a term consisting of the life of the author and 50 years after the author's death". The aformentioned Sonny Bono Act added yet another 20 years to the 1976 Act.

The net effect was that no additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still copyrighted in 1998 will enter the public domain until 2019. With regard to music I think its pretty clear that the bulk of recorded music from the 30's and 40's was locked up. This would all be public domain now if it weren't for this legislation. Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Lester Young, Benny Carter, Billy Holiday, Art Tatum, Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker.....could be public domain now...

1998 was a good year for legislation that protected the interests of the music industry. The downside of Clinton.

I think you nailed it Jocko.

[nightflier]

And just because I feel like ranting some more about bone-headed laws...The 'Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998" AKA the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.

Actually, my sun is blue, or green with purple spots... depending on which Pink Floyd album I'm listening to.

The Copyright Term Extension Act is just one of those laws that actually stiffle innovation, and IMO is one of the many factors that is leading to a decline in the value of American research in relation to the research from China and Europe. It is a perfect example of how fairness and progress are trumped by the profit-motive. The real problem is that a system set up solely for profit risks collapsing on itself because a few wealthy millionnaires cannot ride the backs of the vast majority if the latter can no longer afford the taxes that sustain the system.

At some point we all must make a stand for fairness, because it eventually reaches a point where the abuse is personally intollerable. It's a fine line, I suppose, where the scale tips and we are willing to break or bend a law for fairness. I suppose some of those people who embraced Napster wholeheartdly five years ago were already at that line. The rest of us, perhaps because we were already fairly rich and could weather some of the abuses, were willing to let it get to the point where it is today. Some very few of us, may never be affected enough and will support the system indefinitely hoping to become millionnaires as well... that is, until the millionnaires bail on the sinking ship and move where the money is.

This isn't a pretty picture, so I ask everyone, at what point does it start to hurt? At what point will you make a stand and break the law. Well, folks, the laws are changing and moving in your direction so fast that soon you will all be lawbreakers already, simply by doing what you used to do legally. How many of us has not downloaded an MP3 file, copied a cassette, or watched a pay-cable show that just happend to tune-in properly. This will all become illegal. And how many of us has never pocketed that extra change at the grocery store or speeded just a tad in front of that school - 25mph is awfully slow... This will all be monitored with surveilance equipment. So if anyone can still lift a stone, let the stone-casting begin!

And what about that digital future, where everything you see, read, hear, and enjoy with one of your senses is monitored? Why do you think the cell phone companies are so eagerly expanding their internet-over-satellite technologies? That's right, it won't be long until your car radio, your fridge, your wristwatch, your national ID card, your cell phone, your electric toothbrush, and the clock radio next to your bed are all monitored. Just think of the convenience of having your boss set your alarm clock for you (right after a convenient advertisement for your favorite coffee brand). Think it won't happen? If it will make someone money, it will.

OK, now back to The Wall, I need to be comfortably numbed.

[jocko_nc]

There will always be a pushback.

These folks better get it right with this digital copyright debacle, or they may wind up losing the whole she-bang. Obsolete a bunch of expensive equipment, implement Big Brother, make everyone a criminal, or force a design-by-committee piece-of-crap system and they may find their beloved copyright authorities a fond, distant memory.

Television and music are not like other products, i.e. personal computers, and consumers will not be as tolerant. When we turn on the TV, we expect to see television. Same with the stereo and music. The day either becomes a nuisance, change will happen. We won't tolerate PINs, operating systems, device drivers, or Windows socket errors. Both these technologies have been with us for too long and have become too ingrained in our culture.

Let's have some fun: Put any of these issues to a national vote. I assure you Hollywood, gazillionaire actors, Disney, record lables, broadcast networks, and Wall Street are not going to bask in the people's love. They have law on their side, but law can be changed in an instant. It's called politics. There is no mention of digital copyright protection in the Constitution.

Here is a radical political thought... Since copyrights are owned as the property of the holder and are considered valuable, why not tax them? A State could levy a property tax, just like real estate, a boat, or a car. The Feds would have little to say on the matter. A "scenic view" has recently been quantified and considered taxable as property. We could easily assign an arbitrary value to a copyright. The funds are to help the little people, naturally. Hmmmm. How 'ya like them apples? Its all a creation of politics, just like DMCA and copyrights in general.

Be careful what you wish for, this could be a real hornet's nest.

jocko

[noddin0ff]

Just for the sake of argument...

The music and film industry did just fine for many years when it really wasn't feasible for users to readily duplicate stuff. What makes you think the industry won't be just fine when you can no longer do it digitally. In general, people now have more disposable income. I remember when cable TV started up thinking, why would I want to pay for TV? Now I pay $10/month, but how many of you pay $100? This ability to freely copy and move things around digitally is a recent abberation. So, you'll pay full price for an album and a smaller fee to make additional copies. You'll be more selective with your purchases and life will go on. There's no crime in that.

[jocko_nc]

I pay $100.00...

And I don't mind paying. Even at that price, I consider it a good value. I've been paying DirecTV bewteen $35.00 and $100.00 a month since 1994. That's serious cash. Even when all the hacked equipment was out there, I still had a basic subscription. One thing I have never done, however, is to hook up the modem. I may be a bit wierd, but I don't like my box phoning back to the mother ship. Yes, DirecTV is part Big Brother, but he is a benevolent Brother, IMO.

If I pay for something, I feel it is mine, digital or otherwise. PC software used to be that way, but the greed of others, particularly some specific others in the Redmond WA area, changed all that. It used to be that your software came with source disks that you owned, like a book, music, or any other copyrighted product. Come whatever, you could always reinstall or take your software with you. However, a proper business monopoly could not allow that arrangement to last, way too much control in the hands of the consumer. Enter: Constant "upgrades" and revisions. Incompatability. Operating systems married to particular motherboards and hard drives. Bundling. Bungling. "Restore Disks" that won't restore anything. Antitrust. Bugs. Backdoors. Flaws. Hacks. A myriad of sneaky ways to take control of what you thought was your computer. You paid for it all right, you just don't own it. "Your" software is a license-to-use only to the extent and only in the manner determined by the copyright holder. When they are done with you, you are done. Best of all, this software arrangement results in having to replace a computer long before any of the hardware is worn out or obsolete. It's a boon to the industry but a catastrophe to the consumer. You get a new machine every two years because the suite of software it came with is squirrely. It's cheaper that way.

My rant is pertinent to the music debate. Any digital device that you cannot 100% control that has two-way communication is going to be a disaster. It will be abused. It will become crap. I really do not want to see Music and Television go down the PC / Microsoft path. That would be a shame. You don't think the record label guys won't act greedy underhanded b*&stards and, likely, criminals, just recall what Sony recently did. That should speak volumes.

By the way, I am sitting at an Athlon 750 running Windows 98 SE. I have watched the system at work. It is a part time job keeping my applications running, the Mother Ships are always trying to contact their progeny for a nice "upgrade", which will be neither nice nor an upgrade. I have to keep everything locked behind a firewall, for the grim reaper is calling from Redmond. Did I mention that I don't want my audio and television experience to be like this?

I would never, EVER let Microsoft within a mile of my entertainment. Windows Media Edition? RIGHT!!!!

jocko

[nightflier]

If I pay for something, I feel it is mine, digital or otherwise. PC software used to be that way, but the greed of others, particularly some specific others in the Redmond WA area, changed all that. It used to be that your software came with source disks that you owned, like a book, music, or any other copyrighted product. Come whatever, you could always reinstall or take your software with you. However, a proper business monopoly could not allow that arrangement to last, way too much control in the hands of the consumer. Enter: Constant "upgrades" and revisions. Incompatability. Operating systems married to particular motherboards and hard drives. Bundling. Bungling. "Restore Disks" that won't restore anything. Antitrust. Bugs. Backdoors. Flaws. Hacks. A myriad of sneaky ways to take control of what you thought was your computer. You paid for it all right, you just don't own it. "Your" software is a license-to-use only to the extent and only in the manner determined by the copyright holder. When they are done with you, you are done. Best of all, this software arrangement results in having to replace a computer long before any of the hardware is worn out or obsolete. It's a boon to the industry but a catastrophe to the consumer. You get a new machine every two years because the suite of software it came with is squirrely. It's cheaper that way.

Isn't this exactly what is happening to music. It is being turned from an owned product to a rented one. Little by little all forms of entertainment will become rented and your choices made for you.

In the software industry, the only alternative is open-source software a concept born in the 70's, that is now also coming under attack for being forced to accept DRM. Fortunately there are still enough people who will fight this. I think we need open-source music & movies. I'm not talking about public radio and TV stuffed with adds every five minutes, either. Artists from musicians to Hollywood directors should be encouraged to publish some part of their work to the open source community.

Maybe this is old news, is there already a music & movie open source project like there is for software?

[jocko_nc]

I have no idea about open-source entertainment...

As far as software, much of the shareware is better than what is for sale. Some common titles I use: Firefox. Irfanview. ZoneAlarm. AdAware. HijackThis. Engineering Power Tools. Speaker Workshop. I am this close <places thumb and index finger one mm apart> from converting this thing over to Linux.

jocko

[nightflier]

am this close <places thumb and index finger one mm apart> from converting this thing over to Linux. jocko

Well, not to get too far off-topic, but at my work, we've been meeting about a plan to convert all our servers to Linux (maybe BSD Unix) to avoid rising Microsoft licensing fees. We will also be installing Linux on non-essential workstations (about 30% of our nodes). All this is part of a cost-reduction plan for software licensing fees that we plan to implement over the next 3 yrs or so. I'm not a Linux guy, but I'm very curious to see where this is headed.

Getting back to the music industry, I would be very interested in an Open-Source initiative for music. If there is already something like that out there, great, but if not, I wouldn't mind working on this.

Anyone know of any websites or groups working on this?

[r m]

Adding to the list of open source software try openoffice.org for an office suite (spreadsheets, wordprocessor, presentations, etc). It is pretty good and a lot of it is very similar to microsoft products so it takes no time to learn.