|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
lynne
|
|
response 25 of 151:
| 
Oct 10 23:28 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 26 of 151:
|
Oct 11 00:02 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 27 of 151:
|
Oct 11 00:30 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
dah
|
|
response 28 of 151:
|
Oct 11 01:16 UTC 2003 |
If you don't like it, don't use the hospitals.
|
russ
|
|
response 29 of 151:
|
Oct 11 01:51 UTC 2003 |
I see a big surge in popularity for Macs and Linux on the desktop.
|
slynne
|
|
response 30 of 151:
|
Oct 11 03:18 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
krj
|
|
response 31 of 151:
|
Oct 11 05:36 UTC 2003 |
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
|
mary
|
|
response 32 of 151:
|
Oct 11 13:07 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
mary
|
|
response 33 of 151:
|
Oct 11 13:13 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
mary
|
|
response 34 of 151:
|
Oct 11 13:14 UTC 2003 |
That's how curiosity is spelled pre-coffee.
|
scott
|
|
response 35 of 151:
|
Oct 11 13:37 UTC 2003 |
They're suing their own customers... this is not a business which seems to
understand reality anymore.
|
mary
|
|
response 36 of 151:
|
Oct 11 13:40 UTC 2003 |
So teach 'em.
|
murph
|
|
response 37 of 151:
|
Oct 11 14:28 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
krj
|
|
response 38 of 151:
|
Oct 11 15:10 UTC 2003 |
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.)
|
mary
|
|
response 39 of 151:
|
Oct 11 16:06 UTC 2003 |
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. ;-)
|
krj
|
|
response 40 of 151:
|
Oct 11 20:15 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
polygon
|
|
response 41 of 151:
|
Oct 11 20:24 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
other
|
|
response 42 of 151:
|
Oct 11 20:55 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
murph
|
|
response 43 of 151:
|
Oct 11 23:37 UTC 2003 |
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...
|
russ
|
|
response 44 of 151:
|
Oct 12 01:06 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
mary
|
|
response 45 of 151:
|
Oct 12 02:37 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
slynne
|
|
response 46 of 151:
|
Oct 12 14:27 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 47 of 151:
|
Oct 12 17:52 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
slynne
|
|
response 48 of 151:
|
Oct 12 18:35 UTC 2003 |
Really? I think it will be great if the industry destroys itself.
|
krj
|
|
response 49 of 151:
|
Oct 12 19:46 UTC 2003 |
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
|
