I'm still obsessive; this item is back. Napster the corporation has been destroyed, but the Napster paradigm continues. This is another quarterly installment in a series of weblog and discussion about the deconstruction of the music industry and other copyright industries, with side forays into "intellectual property, freedom of expression, electronic media, corporate control, and evolving technology," as polygon once phrased it. Several years of back items are easily found in the music2 and music3 conferences, covering discussions all the way back to the initial popularity of the MP3 format. Linked between the Agora and Music conferences.151 responses total.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics: :) http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6895800.htm "Music fans cut back on free file swapping" Quote: >> Kazaa usage has fallen 40 percent since the spring, when the >> Recording Industry Association of America began suing students who ran >> on-campus file-swapping networks. Kazaa, the most popular >> file-swapping service, had 17.4 million U.S. unique visitors in March, >> according to Nielsen//NetRatings, a consulting company that monitors >> Web traffic. In August, Kazaa users had dropped to 10.4 million, and >> the numbers are still falling. << Other commentators point out that the Neilsen numbers measure June through August, when University students go home, and they report an uptick in early September and steady traffic since then. ((What is Nielsen measuring, exactly? Do Kazaa users have to check in with the home site when they start the software?)) At Cnet's Download.com site: the number of Kazaa downloads for the last four weeks, from memory: 2.7 million, 2.6 million, 2.4 million, 2.4 million. That's a 10% falloff, but nothing as huge as Nielsen is claiming for traffic to the central Kazaa site. (I really gotta start logging that number. Week ending Sept. 28: 2,424,272 downloads)
A teenager close ot me informed me the other day that he was done with Kazaa becasue he had all the music he ever wanted now. Then a couple days later he went to t the music store and bought a couple brand new releases. Odd behavior from a kid who has spent the last year and a half downloading about 3000 songs.
I think the saddest part of that is that "all the music he ever wanted" was only 3000 songs.
Yep. But maybe I'm strange because I have a couple thousand records, a couple thousand CDs, and several hundred cassettes...not to mention the 45s...boy do I have a lot of 45s.... Now that I read what I posted in #2, I wasn't trying to point out that after he proclaimed he had all the music he wanted he then added to it by buying new CD's, but rather it surprised me that even though he was an avid downloader who at one point stated he'd never buy a CD again...he went out and bought a CD by someone on the day it became available. Can anyone understand 17 year olds, other than other 17 year olds? ;-)
This response has been erased.
A decline in file trading is one way of measuring success for the RIAA. But it won't help them unless it's accompanied by an uptick in music sales.
CD sales have rocketed upwards since the lawsuits were filed. Last night I stopped at a Borders to peek at Billboard, which carries the weekly Soundscan CD sales numbers in their print edition. The RIAA's 261 lawsuits were filed on September 8, and the Billboard dated Sept. 27 contains sales data for the week ending Sept.14 -- not quite one full week after the lawsuits hit the news. Sales week ending Sept. 14: 10,239,000 Sales same week, 2002: 9,947,000 So, year-ago sales were up 2.9% for the week following the RIAA lawsuits. Now, sales were up for the week ending Sept. 7, too, at 10,111,000; so sales were already running high before the filing of the suits. Today's USA Today reports that Big Music is on a roll. I assume this story represents Soundscan data for the week ending Sept. 28. Sales for the week are 12.5 million CDs, up 17% from the same week in 2002. It's the third consecutive week of rising sales. My guess, from looking at the Billboard sales graphs last night, is that this was the best week for Big Music sales in two years. "The gains likely have more to do with all the hot arrivals than the clampdown on the Internet's illegal music traders." Outkast, Dave Matthews, Limp Bizkit and R. Kelly lead the parade of happy sellers. But there is nothing here to suggest that the RIAA's interests are not being served by the lawsuits, and nothing to suggest that a mass consumer boycott is looming. http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2003-10-01-music_x.htm
I would agree that it more a function of who is releasing
CDs at this time this year compared to this time last year.
Maybe the 17 year old is separating music that was always
there (before he became aware of it) and what is arriving in the
record store within his purchase power lifetime--it's his music.
/tpryan raises his hand as another with a good size 45, LP and
CD collection.
Right, although his 'collection' is interesting. I doubt there is anything that is more than three years old in it. Maybe a couple, but not many. In his world, and those of his friends, pre 2000 is "so old". He's way into rap, and while I love the early days of rap, I'm not so interested in the current styles. I cannot, at all, get him interested in the evolution of rap. No sense of history. ;-)
There is a generation gap after all.
You're telling me. ;-)
From Monday's news: I can't help it, this news item put a HUGE smile on my face. About two weeks ago there was a surge of media publicity about the new Sunn Comm anti-copy technology which BMG was going to start using on its new CDs. The first disc to contain this new copy-prevention system was Anthony Hamilton's "Comin' Where I'm From." I know nothing about Mr. Hamilton or his music, I've never heard of him before. The CD was released in late September. Monday's report, which originates with a Princeton University graduate student, is that the system depends entirely on loading a device driver which scrambles the sound from the CD audio tracks. It is trivial to defeat for Windows: load the CD with the shift key depressed to stop the CD from auto-execing, that's it. Or, select the given device driver (it's in the Princeton article, grab it fast before it's suppressed as a DMCA violation) in Windows Device Manager and unload it. Or, find a friend with a Linux machine, or some other Unix variant, or an older Mac. Copies of the copy-protected tracks are reported to have been on Kazaa within hours of album release. "Please install this software which will stop you from using our CD- Audio tracks on your computer. Please do not uninstall this software. Thank you." I wonder how much BMG paid Sunn Comm for this technological wizardry? :) :) :) http://news.dmusic.com/article/8323 http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/
i'm typing this response in all lower case because under the dmca my shift key is now an illegal copyright circumvention device and therefore illegal to sell or possess. :-o
you had to use the shift key to make the colon in your emoticon. please report to the riaa website to request your gps ankle bracelet.
And of course, the follow-up expected since this shiftkey stuff first appeared: SunnComm is now threatening to pursue DMCA charges against the guy at Princeton.
It gets better. Hoo boy, does it get better. SunnComm wants felony DMCA charges against John Haldeman; besides telling everyone about the shift-key workaround, he removed the device driver which SunnComm's software planted on his computer. ((Apparently you no longer have the right to manage the software installed on your computer, or even to know about it.)) http://news.dmusic.com/article/8369 http://news.com.com/2100-1025-5089168.html?tag=nefd_hed The Cnet story also reports that SunnComm wants to sue Haldeman for civil damages because his publication damanged their stock value. SunnComm complains that Haldeman's analysis of the SunnComm copy-prevention weaknesses is invalid because he did not know about all the goodies SunnComm has coming up: Sunncomm CEO Jacobs said, "said the company was also exploring a civil suit based on damage to the company's reputation, since Halderman concluded that the technology was ineffective without knowing about future enhancements. "Future versions of the SunnComm software would include ways that the copy-protecting files would change their name on different computers, making them harder to find, Jacobs said. Moreover, the company will DISTRIBUTE THE TECHNOLOGY ALONG WITH THIRD-PARTY SOFTWARE, SO THAT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS COME OFF A PROTECTED CD, he added." ((emphasis KRJ)) Now stay with me: we go sideways to another SunnComm press release from this week about another product: a technology which somehow users would install on their computers which would prevent CD-Rs (copies) from being further copied. http://news.dmusic.com/article/8367 As I read that earlier, I could not for the life of me figure out how SunnComm would get this installed on your PC. The answer is in that quote above: it will be packaged in third party software which you will be tricked or compelled to install. ----- So, let me re-spell this out in clear, plain language. I believe that BMG, one of the five major labels controlling the RIAA, has contracted with SunnComm to develop and deploy Windows device drivers which consumers are to be compelled or tricked into installing on their own machines, to cripple the machines' capabilities to manipulate audio CDs. SunnComm, and by extension BMG, argues that it is a felony offense to discover what these software drivers are, and to uninstall them from your own computer. The plan is the forced crippling of every Windows machine, backed up by criminal sanctions if you try to undo it.
I certainly hope that MS competitors and press people are able to put the pieces together the same way you did.
re no. 14; I could have cut-and-pasted a colon, and if you try to compel me to answer whether I used the shift key i'll invoke my 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.
I wonder how Microsoft will react to this? 'Twould seem that they would consider these drivers part of the operating system, even more integral a part than a web browser, and so might object to somebody wrecking them.
Presumably MicroSoft won't "sign" such device drivers? Users today don't care who signs the stuff they install, but microsoft has already implemented stuff to allow users not to install "untrusted" software not blessed by official, ie, microsoft, sources, at least not without a dialogue box asking permissions. Since Microsoft claims that only "trusted" software has been tested and found not to break functionality, this shouldn't be hard for them to discover.
Holy shit! What happens if antivirus companies get into the act, since these anti-copy drivers will essentially be Trojan horses? Friends, we're definitely living in interesting times...
Re #19: It wouldn't shock me to see MS including this in one of their service packs, actually. For a price, of course... The details will be buried in the EULA, and the service pack will be one that also fixes some critical security hole. Re #21: Seeing as most antivirus software doesn't detect adware, I doubt they'll be interested in detecting this, either. Antivirus companies tend to focus pretty exclusively on self-replicating code. I can't wait for the fun when these drivers start causing conflicts with other software. Imagine the interesting tech support calls companies will get. Imagine them having to explain to their customers that the software they sold them doesn't work because of a "stealth driver" that's illegal to remove. I'm also trying to imagine how I'm going to explain to my users why they get an error about needing Administrator rights every time they put in one of their music CDs.
> I'm also trying to imagine how I'm going to explain to my users why they > get an error about needing Administrator rights every time they put in > one of their music CDs. Be careful that your explanation doesn't reveal any circumvention approaches or you'll be in hot water, mister.. We'll be watching you and the rest of your DMCA-and-freedom-hating friends.
I'm somewhat amazed by all the anger, astonishment, resentment, and feelings of entitlement on the part of music buyers. The record companies (and artists) make this music. It's theirs. Nobody is forcing you to buy it or listen to it. If you think what they are doing is unfair or unjust JUST STOP LISTENING TO AND BUYING THEIR MUSIC. Six months into a boycott and I bet the recording industry would clean up its act. But you guys are acting like junkies without a choice.
re 24: Not arguing with the boycott suggestion. But the suggestion that we could be required to have secret drivers that we're not supposed to know about and be criminally prosecuted for uninstalling them is really disturbing. Once this is ceded, how long before they start exploiting it in other ways? I think this is a terrible precedent to set. I'm a control freak; I won't install anything that I don't actively need (in fact, I've uninstalled Outlook Express at least six time in the past month because I don't want it on my computer). Hmmm. In fact, I pretty much boycott the music industry by default because I don't often buy any of their crap.
Re #24: Part of the problem is they've so far refused to label which CDs are copy protected. I'd complain a lot less about it if there were warning labels. Also, SunnComm has suggested they will start distributing this hidden driver with other, third-party software, so you could end up getting it without ever buying a CD. The idea of a hidden, un-uninstallable piece of software that deliberately tries to interfere with other software on the computer bothers me a lot. SunnComm has backed off the lawsuit: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/10/10/news/8797.shtml Their CEO says he decided there wouldn't be much benefit and he didn't want to create a chilling effect for other researchers. The threat to find sneakier ways to do this is still there, though.
Re 24: Mary, would you be OK with, say, the hospital deciding to routinely put tracking chips into people during regular surgery, and telling staff they couldn't talk about it? That's a pretty drastic example, but it's pretty similar to what SunnComm is pushing here.
If you don't like it, don't use the hospitals.
I see a big surge in popularity for Macs and Linux on the desktop.
You know what. I have never downloaded any music ever. I have never even made copies of the cds I have bought except that I have copied a few songs to my hard drive so I can listen to them while playing games and stuff. And I am very disturbed about them secretly installing drivers onto my PC. One doesnt have to be a music thief to dislike what the record companies are doing.
Some folks have been trying to get a boycott rolling; see http://www.boycott-riaa.com . They are getting no traction so far, however, and in fact the last three weekly reports we have on CD sales indicate a strong upward trend since the lawsuits were filed by the RIAA. A new Harris poll reports that about 3/4ths of US teenagers believe file sharing should be legal, both uploading and downloading, and 80% of those surveyed have downloaded music within the last year. http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031009/nyth137_1.html
Re: #27 We're not talking about a monopoly supplying a necessary service, as some hospitals might be. We're talking about a service industry selling entertainment products. The consumers hold a lot of power here. They just seem more inclined to whine than take control of the situation. Again, six months with nobody buying music or going to concerts and they'd be looking for ways to win you back instead of telling you how far to bend over.
Just out of curiousity, how much of their business would have to tank before they'd take you seriously? 10% drop? 25% drop? I'd bet even a small drop due to a boycott would get their attention and you'd see a change in attitude.
That's how curiosity is spelled pre-coffee.
They're suing their own customers... this is not a business which seems to understand reality anymore.
So teach 'em.
A big part of the problem, Mary, is that the record companies are fighting a losing battle against people who are violating their (the record companies') property rights, and that, in the course of this battle, the record companies are trashing the property rights of all the law-abiding, non-stealing music fans who just want to listen to the music on their iPod or make a mix-cd for driving or listen to music on their computer. Imagine if somebody sold you a book and tried to force you to only read it while sitting at a kitchen table. This is an utterly ludicrous idea, and there's no way to enforce it. So what the book company does is dust the books with cocaine and then have the government kick in the doors of the book-buyers--looking for the drugs--so that the book company can check and see whether you're reading on the couch, or on the edge of your child's bed, or whereever. Sure, a boycott might work (much more likely, the record companies would ignore the claims that a boycott was in effect and announce that the drop in sales was due to piracy, and, see? they were *right* to take all of these dastardly measures!), but the point is that we shouldn't have to boycott. If I buy a book, it's my right to read it where I want to. If I buy a cucumber, it's my right to eat it how I want to. If I buy a cd, it's my right to listen to it how I want to. Sure, some people will xerox their bookx, fileshare their music, and club people to death with their cucumbers, but this doesn't give the book/cucumber/record seller the right to violate your privacy and property rights. They should save the criminal treatement for the criminals. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make that change come about.
Mary, do you think the Betamax case was wrongly decided? To extend your argument to that case, the TV and movie companies make all that programming. "It's theirs." So, if they don't want consumers recording it, why should home video recorders have been allowed on the market? (To repeat a couple of favorite points: The US came within one Supreme Court vote of banning the VCR; the appeals court had ruled in favor of the copyright holders. The Supreme Court had to engage in extremely creative lawmaking to arrive at the Betamax decision, and even under that ruling, if you have an accumulation of videotape you have recorded, you are almost certainly a copyright infringer.)
If a publisher sells you a book under contract that it only be only read in the kitchen then you're the stupid one for buying the book. Unless you only read in the kitchen, that is. I understand that what they are trying to implement is bigger the disk you purchase, that it's a change to your own computer software. What has me shaking my head is that despite this desperate and heavy handed behavior people are still supporting the industry financially. That's a jones. I suspect this will all shake-out in the courts. What will help keep things open and free for the end user, help immensely, is if the users aren't making copies for friends and they are putting extreme pressure on the recording industry by means of not buying their products. You have to cost them more money through a boycott than they are losing through piracy. (Mary senses lots of people thinking, "That's a lot of money.") Yep. I rest my case. ;-)
How would Big Music know what it was losing from a boycott, vs. what it was losing through unauthorized copying? If you want to argue I'm a music junkie, I won't dispute it. I have sworn off buying new CDs from Big Music, the five multinationals who drive the RIAA; but as I mentioned earlier, it isn't that big a sacrifice, except in the classical music catalog.
I can't help the boycott. I haven't bought a new CD for myself in a store for years. And I don't download music either, other than occasionally listening to Internet radio. Yeah, it makes me furious that the RIAA wants to modify my computer against my will, but I can't change their behavior by buying less than zero of their stuff.
The compromise solution might be to get those people who already have an effective boycott in place on their own to sign onto a public declaration of same so that the the RIAA is forced to face the fact that their decline in sales is due to their own tactics rather than filesharing. Although I am at the very low end of music consumption, I have not bought a new CD in at least 10 years from any source other than the artists directly.
Nobody, on the other hand, has managed to show that the music industry is losing any money from piracy whatsoever...If I had a choice between downloading songs, buying cds, or going without, I'd spend the same amount of money as if I didn't have the option of downloading songs. Probably less. Of the cds I have bought in the last year, a few of them were cds that I already had all of the tracks on my computer--I bought the cds and keep them lying around (and for playing in the car), but I wouldn't have bought them if I hadn't already downloaded the music to know that I like it. Many of my friends act in a similar manner: download as test drive. From op-ed pieces, I get the feeling this is not limited to my social group. Of course, with the exception of a very few artists, everything I buy is from labels too small to be suing anybody...
Re #39: Mary, publishers already tried that. They sold books under a "contract" which said that the book could not be re-sold. These contracts were challenged, and the publishers lost. From this we got the fair-use doctrine and the "first sale" doctrine: unless you are making INFRINGING COPIES the publisher cannot tell you how to dispose of your copy, and even a certain amount of copying (say, excerpts for comment, reviews or teaching) is permitted under fair use. You probably have no idea how much it would cost you to throw out the doctrines of fair use and first sale, and while I wouldn't mind it if you got to see first-hand I don't want to suffer the consequences of what it would take to bring that about.
So it's probably a good idea I'm not asking for that, eh? Just like I'm not asking for people who don't buy CDs to stock up just so they can become part of a boycott and make a difference. What I am saying is do what you can to send a message to the recording industry that their heavy handed tactics aren't going to get them what they want - record sales.
Well. I dont think a formal boycott is necessary for that. I mean, as more and more people get angry with the record industry, it will mean they will become receptive to other methods of promoting music. The technology exists now that just about anyone can record their own music and burn it onto CD's for cheap. They just dont have the means for promoting their music. But as soon as someone figures out a way, I predict that the up and comings in the music biz will stop signing with major labels. The recorded music business will be around for as long as people like music but the record label business might just be on the way out in no small part because they are alienating their customers. Heck. I dont even care all that much about napster or file sharing or whatever because I dont do it but I think the major labels are evil and if I could get the music I want without giving them money or stealing, well I am all about that.
I'm not somebody who feels "entitled" to free music. What I'm pissed about is that the industry seems to be intent on destroying itself.
Really? I think it will be great if the industry destroys itself.
NYTimes has a good, lengthy article on the authorize online music services groping for price points; the various pressures involved, and the fears of Big Music that authorized online sales will put still more downard pressure on CD sales. At the end, there's a statement that Big Music is still pinning its hopes on a magic bullet to end CD copying. Denial, denial, denial still seems to be the order of the day with Big Music. Only a little mention at the end is given to consumer resistance to the DRM issues: Quote: >> "But for the time being, record executives are still seeking to protect the more reliable, more lucrative CD business, which currently accounts for almost all of its revenue. After all, some say, antipiracy, anticopying technology may be available within the year. "If that happens, the industry is likely to back away from the kind of pricing innovations with which it is now experimenting. Already, a strain is evident between record labels that want to restrict what consumers can do with the music they buy and the new on-line retailers, which argue that people won't use their services if they can't use it freely. "This isn't going to work if people don't feel like they own the music," said a senior executive at one of the new services, who declined to be identified because of continuing negotiations with the labels. "Doesn't someone over there realize that? Why should people pay for it if it's not more convenient -- when they can just get it for free?" >> endquote << "What Price Music?" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/12/arts/music/12HARM.html
Re #39: It seems to me that so far the trend has been that the more CD sales drop, the more traction the RIAA members have to get Congress to restrict what people can do with their own computers. A boycott could be counterproductive by inspiring yet more legislation. Re #49: I think it's fundamentally impossible to have effective copy-protection on CDs while still supporting existing CD players. The format was designed to be simple to play, and security wasn't even a remote consideration. Any halfway-effective copy protection scheme will require a new format.
I do download some music. I downloaded "Big Bad John" because I was trying to find out who sang it. I saw it when I downloaded Johnny Cash's "One Piece At A Time", which my son heard. I hadn't heard that one since I was a kid and I figured I could get it without much trouble. I was not going to hop in the car and go to the local record store to see if I could find either of these songs. I don't feel "entitled" to copy these songs over the Internet, but I cannot for the life of me see how it's going to hurt any musicians that I downloaded them. I don't see how it's going to hurt anyone. Let's see. Two weeks earlier I downloaded "Mother's Little Helper". In September I became curious to see if I liked Jethro Tull any more than I did when I was younger. (I don't.) That one might have cost someone some money some day. I might have gone out and bought a Jethro Tull tape or CD if I saw one at a rummage sale, and now I won't. In August I downloaded "Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah", the night before my kid was going to camp. But okay. It was a crime each time I downloaded these songs. I'll feel bad if I get arrested.
I've been spending some time investigating record labels which are not RIAA members and encourage try-before-you-buy downloads. So far I've pulled 3 albums from Magnatunes.com. I haven't had time to listen to them, but if I like them, I'll buy the CDs. I'll probably burn MP3 tracks for friends who don't have fast connections and wouldn't spend the time to check them out otherwise. Music will be fine even if the RIAA's members drive off a cliff.
Am I the only one who think John Ellis Perry's name is archetypical of an 80s rocker?
Nuts. I thought I'd put all of that behind me. I don't perform any more, and am not interested in re-iterating any of that now. It's over with. Thank you for respecting my need to move on with the new direction of my life.
Will there be much Grex footage in the "John Ellis Perry -- Behind the Music" special? (And if so, will it be part of your downfall or redemption?)
(I guess between Grex and heroin, I'd choose Grex...)
re resp:55: It's unauthorized. I don't know anything about the details. My former publicist is not allowed to tell anything he knows about my private life as part of his severance package. I have no comment on the rest of it.
This response has been erased.
Re#51 - technically you probably didnt hurt the band. For any song there are a certain number of people who will buy it at every price. For example, lets just say that at $20 there are 1000 people who will buy the song. And at $10, there are 2000 people who will buy it. And just suppose that if the price were $0, there would be 5000 people who would be willing to get this song. If the price of the song is $20, it doesnt really hurt the artist if the 4000 people who might want it but arent willing to pay that price download it or whatever. In fact, there might even be some benefit to the artist if that happens. The problem is that there isnt an easy way to get the song to the folks who might be interested in it for free while still getting the people willing to pay for it to pay for it. So, it being available for free is what is hurting the artist.
One thing is, they could not find a way to stop taping, either.
Ah, the good old days when all my mix tapes were created by taping songs off the radio. It didn't hurt sales any--I couldn't have afforded to buy any of the albums.
An item I just found in Stereophile reminded me that hardly anyone has noticed that Big Music is facing a format war which might be as messy as Betamax vs. VHS. http://www.stereophile.com/shownews.cgi?1750 The article is about the National Association of Record Merchants -- the trade group for the retailers -- bracing its members for being on the front lines of consumer discontent as Big Music rolls out more CDs with the SunnComm "copy-discouraging" technology. In particular: The Apple iPod holds a 25% market share in the portable MP3 player market, or some number like that. But, you cannot use SunnComm protected CDs to feed your iPod!! For authorized use, SunnComm- plagued CDs only deliver Windows Media WMA files, which the iPod doesn't play. Similarly, Napster 2.0 only delivers WMA. If you've got an iPod, Napster doesn't want you as a customer. So we're set for a Windows Media vs. Apple AAC format battle, and a lot of users may just sit this one out and contine to download MP3 files. Which wasn't Big Music's intent at all...
It's going to be hard to wean people off MP3s. They're more flexible than any of the alternatives, and have become a defacto standard. The experiences the movie industry had with Divx (the disc format, not the more recent video encoding scheme) suggest that people don't like time-limited, copy-protected media formats, either, and that they do know the difference.
The Washington Post reports that the FCC is poised to impose requirements that consumer electronics, including computers, block the copying and transmission of digital TV and movie programming. This is the "broadcast flag" proposal. The article says a final rule is expected at the end of August. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32173-2003Oct15.html The article contains no technical details, but such a rule seems to ready to clash drastically with Linux and the other free Unix versions, and with the general ability of people to freely build computers out of parts.
Mary's notion that, if we don't like the terms, we should just not buy the product, is more than a little naive. What if we want the product? Even more naive is her notion that falling sales should teach the music industry that their approach isn't working. Hah! So far it's only encouraged them to pursue their approach with greater vehemence. Like Bush in Iraq, their belief is, "If you get in a hole, dig faster." on the other hand - slynne said, "I have copied a few songs to my hard drive so I can listen to them while playing games and stuff." I don't even do that. I have my stereo system next to my computer. (I've tried playing CDs on the computer. It slows down whatever else I'm doing.)
I really think the RIAA should just bow to the inevitable and just give up the fight which was lost before it began. I personally have over 200 CDs,and they are all BACKED UP on mp3,so when one scratches I just chuck it and burn another.Honestly how are you gonna sue muti-millions of people who download,rip or otherwise copy music?NOT HAPPENING.They'd be smart to cut their losses and stop rocking the boat,because they're the ones wearing cement life-preservers.Besides,statistics show that 80% of people wo download music BUY THE ALBUM IN QUESTION ANYWAY!!
Apple iTunes for Windows launched yesterday with much foofaraw. If any kind reader tries it out, please bring us a report!! (Same for Napster 2.0.) Apple is launching a huge promotion at the Super Bowl with Pepsi; Apple says it is going to give away 100 million free song downloads as part of the promotion, and many of those giveways will be keyed to Pepsi contest caps, where about 1 cap in 3 will win a download. Also from today's New York Times coverage, which I read in the dead tree edition (thus no link): the iPod is up to a 31% market share in the portable MP3 player market. (Recall what I wrote yesterday about BMG Sunn-Comm plagued CDs, and Napster 2.0, not interoperating with the iPod.)
Meanwhile, at ConClave this past weekend, Steve Salaba presented Bill Higgins and later, Bill Roper each with a 78 rpm record of their work. Each cut on a machine that can make 78's one at a time. Even back when this machine was in use, it was posible to make copies. In this case, the input stream to the 78 cutter was his Ipod.
This response has been erased.
Since the iPod acts as a Firewire disk (if you choose to configure it to do so) I suppose you could "load" just about any computer file you want on one, but you wouldn't ordinarily "load" Napster or Kazaa onto your iPod.
This response has been erased.
I don't know where to begin picking apart that one, so I'm just going to assume you're trolling..
This response has been erased.
There is a flood of items.... As lawmakers tear out their hair, crying "Why won't they stop?", adding jail to the list of penalties is the next step. "UK to adopt EU copyright law" http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=362934 4§ion=news Quotes: > "It could be interpreted under these new regulations that you are > now committing a criminal offence when you use Kazaa or other > (peer-to-peer) services," said Out-law.com Editor Struan Robertson > in a statement on the site, which is part of the law firm Masons. > The law would also make illegal the circumvention of copy-protection > schemes, such as copying songs from a protected CD or watching a > DVD on a computer using the Linux operating system. This is reported as a done deal, with the new penalties coming into force shortly. Penalty: two years in the pokey. ----- Meanwhile, the European Union plans to ratchet up the pressure and throw more people in jail. "Europe's Antipiracy Proposal Draws Criticism" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/20/business/worldbusiness/20lobby.html Quotes: > The proposal would go far beyond existing laws in Europe and the > United States by classifying copyright violations and patent > infringements, even some unwitting ones, as crimes punishable by > prison terms. > Lawyers who have studied a draft of the proposed law say that not > only could a teenager who downloaded a music file be sent to jail > under it; so too could managers of the Internet service provider that > the teenager happened to use, whether they knew what the teenager > was doing or not. In an outstanding example of how we are now ruled by our corporate masters: the draft rules originally applied only to for-profit copyright infringements. However, wording to include file-sharing was inserted in the legislation by THE WIFE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF VIVENDI, who own the world's largest record company. Let me repeat that: Draconian criminal copyright proposals are being dictated by the wife of a record company executive. ----- Can't happen in America? According to this report, the "Free Trade Area of the Americas" treaty (FTAA) will require all signatories, including the US, to make file sharing a felony. The treaty also mandates law changes which greatly erode the scope of fair use and user's rights to backup their own media. An organization called IP Justice says the treaty implements the wishlist of the RIAA, the MPAA and Microsoft. "International treaties will force 34 democracies to change copyright, IP laws." http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12219
Todd Rundgren speaks out in favor of file sharing and against the record companies and lawsuits. This may only be available TODAY at the Hollywood Reporter: http://hollywoodreporter.com/thr/music/feature_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2 007230 The sidebar articles are also pretty good.
I've got an iBook, so I've been using iTunes for a long time; so far, most of what I've heard about the Windows version has been good, except that it won't work on Win98 and crashes Win2k if certain Win2k upgrades aren't present. (google news says they just released an upgrade to fix that) I've never bought anything from the store--anything that I want enough to buy, either iTunes doesn't have (yet), or my girlfriend will have already bought. And, since iTunes can share its library with other iTunes users on the local subnet, I can play all of her music. I'm interested to see how the iTunes Music Store AAC vs. Napster 2.0 WMA vs. legacy hardware mp3 wars play out. The iPod's market share is only growing (and with good reason, too), which means iTMS will have a huge advantage over Napster 2. Unless, of course, Microsoft comes out with a piece of hardware nicer than the iPod. I suppose that since Steve Jobs has announced hell to have frozen over, the snowball's chance that is MS producing decent hardware is plausible. Almost.
Once upon a time, the penalty for stealing a loaf of bread to feed a hungry family was death. The latest rules are almost that stupid. How's King Canute doing lately?
King Canute XCIII, last I heard, is on his way to death by saltwater inhalation, just like every previous member of his ruling line...
Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, is interviewed. He says the RIAA lawsuits are working great; sales have been up for six weeks, relative to the year-ago numbers, and the public backlash predicted by common wisdom simply hasn't materialized. http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/26/qampa_cary_sherman _riaa_president_on_battle_vs_file_swappers/
Wow. I wonder if he's being disingenuous or just phenomenally dense when he cites a six-week rise in sales over last year (one of the music industry's worst) as "proof" that the lawsuits are working?
From my looking at the Billboard reports of Soundscan's measures of sales,
the RIAA's Sherman is right on the mark. I entered Soundscan's report
of sales figures for the week immediately following the lawsuits in
resp:7, and sales have continued up. Here's the most recent stuff
I have, from Billboard dated October 25:
current week 11,580,000
same week 2002 10,654,000 up 8.7%
There's an accompanying text story. This was the fifth straight week
that sales have been up relative to year-ago, and that hasn't
happened since 2001. Industry execs prefer to stress the appeal of
the new releases, but say the lawsuits against file sharers are
helping a little bit.
The article says everyone expects sales to fall below the 2002 level
at the end of October, because October 2002 had a huge boost from an
Eminem release.
-----
The convention wisdom was that suing ordinary people would provoke a
backlash.
There is no sign of outrage at Big Music spreading beyond Slashdot
readers, and the 460 people who have been/will be sued. A telling
example for me is the website http://downhillbattle.org, which is trying
to raise money for legal expenses and settlement bills for those sued.
So far they have raised a whopping $1900; in terms of the net, that's
pathetic.
Big Music has to be saying: why didn't we sue individual file swappers
two or three years ago?
The Librarian of Congress has carved out some DMCA exemptions:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33668.html
The exemptions cover:
- Censorware blacklists - researchers had asked for the right to extract
these without fear of DMCA prosecution
- Computer software protected by dongles that are obsolete or don't work
- Computer software protected by obsolete media
- E-books that stop blind or partially-sighted readers from turning on
read-aloud or large-print options.
(Geez, my ex-history professor sure has a lot of power...)
Yes, "ex-history" seems to be the right field of study for this subject.
The RIAA has filed 80 new lawsuits against alleged file swappers. These people are from the list of 204 people who were warned by the RIAA in early October that they would be the next targets. 124 of that group have either settled, or are discussing settlements, with the RIAA. http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5099738.html ----- BMG says they're happy with the SunnComm copy-restriction system which installs drivers on the user's PC, and they plan to use the system on more releases. BMG says that sales for the SunnComm- infected disk, by Anthony Hamilton, fell less than expected in the weeks after release, indicated that people were burning fewer copies of it. "CD Experiment Shows Early Promise" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38052-2003Oct29.html
Downloading music is no different than beating up a little crippled girl, selling her wheelchair for crack money, and then going back to rape her. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but I'm getting really fed up with these piracy analogies.
This response has been erased.
Good analogies, actually. :>
re # 86-That is quite simply a matter of personal opinion scott.I'm guessing you support the double-damned RIAA,huh?Shame on you!
Hi Dave, welcome to Grex! Do have your irony detector brought in for its periodic maintenance, OK?
The five major record companies are about to consolidate down to four, or maybe three. Sony and BMG (Bertelsmann) have signed a letter of intent to create a new firm from their existing operations. Meanwhile, EMI and (AOL) Time Warner are still negotiating some sort of a merger, and in late news today EMI has bank financing lined up. It's unclear if regulators in the USA and EU would approve both deals. Any consolidation would likely involve huge layoffs. http://www.forbes.com/home_asia/newswire/2003/11/06/rtr1138376.html
I just can't wait until they pass the savings on to us!
Why Mike, is that just a *hint* of sarcasm I detect?
The FCC has approved plans for a "broadcast flag" that will allow broadcasters to block recording of digital TV transmissions. All digital TV devices made after July 1, 2005 will have to honor the flag. Why do I get the feeling this flag will be turned on most of the time? http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/33807.html You have to hand it to the media companies...it took them about 20 years to figure out a way around their failure to get the VCR banned, but eventually they did it.
Hmmm... The report I'd heard said that the flag would NOT prevent the recipient of the broadcast making a copy for personal use.
after translation to baseband video, noting is impossible. how silly of a 'fix.' same with audio/cds ... once into audio format, notng is impossible.
The movie studios and record labels are now starting to talk about "closing the analog hole," so you can probably expect to see digital to analog conversion devices restricted as well. It wouldn't surprise me to see no analog outputs at all on digital video devices in the future, since this would both benefit the studios by restricting copying *and* benefit the hardware manufacturers by forcing people to buy new digital equipment instead of using converter boxes with their old analog TV stuff.
now *tha's* a fix.... NOT!
Cnet has bought what's left of mp3.com, which has been a source for independent and amateur musicians to distribute their recordings. The site will shut down at the beginning of December, and Cnet plans to relaunch it as a music information site -- sounds like downloadable MP3 files will no longer be a part of the game plan. http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5107696.html There's an interesting story to be written about the rise and fall of MP3.com, one of the dot-com debacles which might have gone somewhere.
Amazing how many artists signed onto mp3.com for 'take my music--please'.
For a lot of artists it was probably the only realistic chance they had at reaching an audience.
democracy finally reigns!!
I have unconfirmed reports that SunnComm's Media Max product is on the new Sarah McLachlan and Pink CDs. This product will definitely infect your Windows computer with drivers intended to mess up CD burning and MP3 ripping if you click on the EULA which comes up, and there are unconfirmed rumors that it will infect the PC even if you don't accept the EULA. Behavior on Macs unknown. <krj makes a note to figure out how to shut off "autorun" on Win2K.>
Part of the DMCA case brought against Skylink Technologies, a maker of universal garage door remotes, has been dismissed. A federal judge ruled that the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA were not violated. However, the dismissal hinged on the fact that Chamberlain, the garage door manufacturer, did not explicitly forbid using non-Chamberlain remotes on their packaging. Watch out for companies to start adding license agreement-like text to their packaging, in the future. There's an article at Security Focus that gives some interesting details about how Skylink cracked Chamberlain's garage door opener codes: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7461
The DCMA must die.
The DMCA, too. ;)
taht too...;)
The RIAA and MPAA are seeking a permanent antitrust exemption, to avoid lawsuits like the one filed against them in August by a group of webcasters. A bill sponsored by Orrin Hatch, the EnFORCE Act, would give them just that. "...the EnFORCE Act will expand an existing antitrust exemption to conform the law to market realities. Today, an antitrust exemption in the Copyright Act gives record companies and music publishers the flexibility they need to negotiate mechanical royalty rates in the rapidly evolving market for legal music downloading. These parties now need the same flexibility to ensure that they can negotiate royalties associated with innovative forms of physical phonorecords, like enhanced compact disks and DVD audio disks." -- Orrin Hatch Register article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34191.html Orrin Hatch's speech: http://tinyurl.com/wn7r
"physical phonorecords"? how nice to know our laws are being written by legislators who are up to date on all the latest technology. 23 skidoo!
Blame it on the motor-car
The phrase "physical phonorecord" is simply a term of precision. It is not an archaic or outdated term, but one that clearly distinguishes tangible audio recording media from both intangible media and other types of recordings. That said, Hatch is a dolt and a content-industry hack.
What Hatch isn't up on is the jargon of the field, by which CDs and anything beyond them are not "records". I get rather tired of this conceit, myself. I like to be able to say I'm going to the record store, and know that it'll be understood I'm referring to a place that sells mostly CDs.
Strike a blow for common sense.
Albums are still albums, despite the media.
The original record album was 5 or 6 78s in sleeves, bound
into an album binding.
USA Today ran a group of stories about "The Death of the Album," as an increasing number of music fans prefer to take single tracks from either authorized or unauthorized download systems. The financial implications for the industry are huge, but the USA Today pieces also had lots of stuff from artists who were unhappy that their songs were going to be consumed a la carte. I'm seriously flirting with joining the a la carte party myself. In a fit of rock guitar nostalgia I started listening to BBC Radio 6 last week, and about ten songs got stuck in my head. I'm thinking of signing up with iTunes and spending maybe $10 to get the best single songs I heard, rather than spending $70 to get used album CDs or $180 to get the new album CDs. Spending, say, $10/month to get a mix CD of rock songs every month seems rather appealing. I'm gonna have to find out what percentage of the stuff I like is available through iTunes; it might not be too high.
For me it depends on the group. Some I prefer to experience as individual tracks, but some bands are better listened to in full album form. Pink Floyd is in the latter category for me.
Yes. (The affirmative word, not the band! I just realized I shut put that in. ;-). NP: Radiohead, High and Dry
The Register reports that the RIAA has hired Bradley Buckles, former head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, as their new head of anti-piracy enforcement. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34445.html) I wonder if this means the NRA will add the RIAA to their 17-page enemies list? ;) (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15)
Much of the stuff I saw about the RIAA hiring the head of the ATF
revolved around Waco metaphors, or else Prohibition, with the RIAA
having hired their own G-Man.
-----
A copyright body in Canada handed down three interesting rulings:
1) Unauthorized downloading of copyrighted music from the Internet
is not prohibited in Canadian law, though unauthorized uploading
is illegal.
2) MP3-ish digital music players are to have a levy placed on them
based on memory/hard disk size, said levy to reimburse the copyright
industry. The levy tops out at Can$25 for a player with 20GB or more
capacity. 1 to 10 GB players are $15. Small machines are $2.
3) It was proposed that the Canadians would levy a 49-cent (Can) charge
per CD-R blank, essentially doubling the cost of blank media.
However, this proposal was rejected for now and will not be revisited
until the end of 2004. This charge, IIRC, was deemed unfair to
blank-media users who are not duplicating copyrighted music.
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031212.gtlevydec12/BNS
tory/Technology/
Despite those rulings, however, the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association?) promises to start bringing file sharing lawsuits to Canada as soon as possible, and the IFPI (international trade group) wants lawsuits against P2P users in Europe. ----- Here's a highly entertaining piece of anti-RIAA propaganda: http://www.whatacrappypresent.com
interesting..
Sounds like Canada is getting the worst of both worlds. Users have to pay a mandatory royalty fee, then they get sued for copying files anyway.
As long as the RIAA and their international analogs are the only ones lobbying heavily on these issues, we're all headed for the worst of both worlds..
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/19/1611238 from the above link: "My Way News is reporting that a Federal appeals court ruled that the RIAA can't compel the ISP to provide the name of the downloaders in their case against Verizon. In fact, the court said that one of the arguments the RIAA used 'borders upon the silly.' I believe most here will agree that this is great news."
Since I'm working for a phone company / ISP these days, I'm particularly happy not to have to worry about being handed additional work by the RIAA.
An article in Salon recently claimed that some week in December 1969 was the greatest week in rock history, as _Abbey Road_, Led Zeppelin's second album, CSN's first album, Santana's first album, and half a dozen other notable rock albums all charted in the top ten on the same week. In claiming that something like that was unlikely to happen again, the author stated that it was easier to make the top ten in those days because albums in general sold many fewer copies than they do today. This struck my curiosity, because part of the argument in this topic is that record sales have been dropping. I guess one should ask, compared to what standard? Have sales been artificially high over the past 2-3 decades, and a drop should not be so alarming?
Perhaps in the current day we have fewer major-label record releases which are expected to sell many more copies apiece? There's certainly less variety on the radio and I'd be pretty willing to believe there're fewer choices on record store shelves (assuming you can even find a real record store anymore..) It wouldn't surprise me to learn that back when there were five times as many albums being released (to just make up a number) an album only had to sell half as many copies (making up another number) to make the top ten..
I know I've heard that movies need to sell tickets more _quickly_ these days than they used to. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true of albums too -- I get the impression that records are expected to sell quickly and then disappear, rather than stick around at a medium-high level of sales (the way, say, "Dark Side of the Moon" or "Back in Black" have). So that might account for some of the difference in statistics too: even if overall record sales are dropping, the expected first-week or first-month sales figures for a successful album might be rising, the same way first-weekend ticket sales for hit movies are still rising.
Given the pay-for-play system that prevails on most commercial radio stations today, underperforming records probably aren't given time to become sleeper hits or build up a cult following. Anything that isn't an immediate hit is probably considered too expensive to promote.
Yer don't say...
Who pays whom for play?
Record companies pay "independent promoters" to play their records. Promoters pay radio stations for control over their playlists. As a result there's very little chance you'll hear a record played on commercial radio stations unless the record company has payed a promoter a considerable sum of money to have it aired. Apparently, although the end effect of the system is not a great deal different than the "payola" practices made illegal in the 50s & 60s, it's not actually illegal because the record companies aren't paying the radio stations or disc jockeys directly (not that most disc jockeys get to choose what they play anymore..) I really don't pretend to understand the legal issues but the matter has been pretty well documented in recent years.
Are record companies still trying to charge internet radio stations which want to play their music? In the early years of vinyl records they apparently tried to make the radio stations pay them, until they realized it made money for them if the station played their records.
I believe they are, though the license fee was significantly reduced. It's still a substantial burden on Internet radio, as far as I know.
Considering the quality of internet radio, you would think anyone who listened to a piece on it and liked it would want to go buy the CD instead of recording from the internet. And that the companies would therefore pay the stations.
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
I thought an internet radio station that reaches less than 100 (fixed by real capacity) is charged more per playing than a radio station that can reach 100,000 or more.
To the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge the radio station is charged nothing, so that's probably true.
Radio stations pay royalties to the groups such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc. everytime they play one of the agencies songs. It's how songwriters get royalties.
Hmmm.. I thought they didn't. Guess I was mistaken.
There are two copyrights associated with any given track -- the songwriter's copyright on the song, and the record company's copyright on the performance. Radio stations don't have to pay performance royalties but they do have to pay songwriter royalties.
And last I heard, it is an all-or-nothing license for BMI,
ASCAP, etc. No partial payment for playing less than 10 percent
music, such as for talk stations.
Which means that when a sports-talk station is playing
Gary Glitter's 'Rock & Roll', as a theme, there is a probability
that he is missing royalty payments on that.
This response has been erased.
Re resp:142,resp:143: There are special rules for songs used as the opening or closing themes for radio shows. If less than a certain percentage is used, half the normal royaly is owed *if* the song is used as both the opening and closing theme. If it's used for an opening or closing, but not both, then no royalty is owed. So The Pretenders don't get anything out of Rush Limbaugh's broadcasts, for example, since he only uses "My City Was Gone" as an opening theme. I believe these licenses are also "compulsory", which means that as long as a station pays the royalties they can't be refused the right to play the song.
This response has been erased.
"DVD Jon" Johansen, the author of the DeCSS DVD-decryption software, has been acquitted (again) by a Norwegian court of appeals. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3341211.stm No word yet on whether the verdict will be appealed.
This response has been erased.
But isn't that just it? Greed?
Yessir.
This response has been erased.
I tend to think it comes with the territory.
You have several choices: