Playing CDs On Computer Now A Privilege
from the they-can-take-our-lives-but-they'll-never-take-our-morcheeba dept
I recently bought a car. In the copious documentation that came with it, nowhere did it say I couldn't drive the car only in reverse, on dirt roads, without pants, or on Wednesdays. As far as I can tell, I can do pretty much whatever I want with that car, and the people that sold it to me don't have any say in the matter. Apparently any music I buy might not play by the same rules, with the head of the Finnish branch of the IFPI (the international equivalent of the RIAA) having labeled the ability to listen to music on a computer a privilege. So I need some sort of permission or approval to use something I've purchased however I like, in this case, listen to music on the device of my choice? That's the point of DRM and copy protection, to give the content producer an inordinate amount of control. But the effect of these pointless restrictions on music isn't that they stop file-sharing, far from it. It's really the opposite -- they encourage it. The IFPI and its friends look at the problem from the wrong side. People have minimal incentive to buy expensive, DRM-laden music when they can get unrestricted versions through file-sharing. Instead of improving their product to make it competitive, the labels hope to club people into buying it by eliminating any alternatives.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
music plays on my computer
I bought the CD, I bought the computer. I can use, break, eat, burn, etc. each item to my heart's contentment.
They can never take that privilege away from me, and I can assure you there are real hackers making sure of that, (hackers: not to be confused with skiddies).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: music plays on my computer
maybe that's what we all ought to do find out where the riaa pres is gonna be next and go to where he is and start breaking and smashing popular cd's and tapes right in front of him and take a big metal trash can and burn the broken pieces of cd's and tapes and show him that we do so own the cd's that we buy!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
They can call it one all they want. They'll just not get my money and I will openly download it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Car ownership vs CD ownership
When you sell a song or other such product, you do not make a new one each time. You manufacture the vehicle which carries it. This is where the comparison breaks down.
You certainly can do whatever you like with a CD and the Finns are silly to say otherwise. But the middle parties who are the music industry have no relevence if they cannot retain the right to sell each performance of a work regardless of how it is delivered.
The real problem here is that there is really no need for the music industry at all other than the artists and any model that says otherwise is including baggage that simply is no longer needed.
I doubt the Finn's would claim that the right to make pictures on the wall by nailing up the CD's is a privilege, and that is really how silly and transparent to the corrupt music industry such a statment is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Car ownership vs CD ownership
I disagree. Despite file-sharing networks and despite the ability to override DRM, the music industry continues to sell CDs and continues to make money. Lots of people are still buying CDs. Sure, not as many CDs are being sold today as in the past, but that is largely attributable to an increase in sales of DVDs and a change in demographics. The success of iTunes shows that people will pay for music. The whole impact of file-sharing is overplayed by the industry and the media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good!
Ultimately, that will open the way for new distribution channels and new business models.
I, for one, can't wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misuse
They dont even want you to backup your own DVD's or cd's either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misuse
Vehicle and driver licencing is permission granted by the goverment to use something you as an individual do NOT own. It's not permission to use your car, you own that. It's permission to operate your car on a public road which the government is responsible for. You don't need permission from Toyota to drive your car, or have any number of passengers, or to lower the suspension and fit aftermarket parts, but you'll need permission from the government if you want to operate your overloaded or modified (and thus potentially unsafe) vehicle on 'their' roads.
When I was growing up I learned to drive in a rusty and dented Toyota on my parents' farm. I did not need permission from the New Zealand government (for me as a driver or for the car) because I wasn't using their roads. And I certainly did not need permission of Toyota Motor Corp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misuse
And I would point out (again!) that drunken operation of your lawnmower has absolutely NOTHING to do with permissions granted by your lawnmower manufacturer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stretching the analogy�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
Sorry, but stuff like this makes me less inclined to buy an artist's music and I will be more likely to obtain it in a less-than-legal manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
If I can hear it played, I can get the source of the sound into my computer through line-in, and then I can listen to it on my computer, or make an MP3 from it.
And of course after someone does that, they can make it available for download on any of the p2p networks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Can Play the It's Like Game
It's like the auto industry installing equipment in the car to keep you from taking more than one passenger.
Because those extra passengers should buy their own cars.
MjM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think that sucks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think that sucks?
"If you think that sucks, read the EULA for any Disney Kids game. You do not even own the game after purchase, you merely own the plastic that the game was printed on....thats right for $20 you get a CD!"
UMMMMMM....It's been that way for a long long time with ALL games you buy. This also applies to books, movies, music, etc. When you buy another person's work, you are buying a license to use it in certain ways. you don't actually own the information. That's called copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think that sucks?
What you say could be interpreted as "you cannot read your book, or play your CD for anyone else, or you violate that copyright; and if you do..."
What, if I read the Chronicles of Narnia to my daughter, then I owe for the second copy I need because I shared it with her?
Do you charge others a fee for borrowing your car, scooter, segway, bicycle, skateboard, airplane, bus, time machine? That could feasably be argued by some poor lawyer to the point of your loss in court.
These things, however insane they may seem, may be working against you and you've already agreed to them.
Now what, constituent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think that sucks?
Then perhaps it should be renamed "use-right"
By my way of thinking COPYright is a government-granted monopoly on the right to make and distribute COPIES. Nothing else.
When you BUY a work you're buying the work completely. It should be yours to do whatever you like with short of making copies for distribution and if you don't agree then don't bother trying to sell your crippled CD's to me.
The recording and movie industry don't agree, so I download CC-licenced music and wait for movies on free-to-air TV. Microsoft don't agree, so I've been running Linux almost as long as I've had a computer. And it feels good to be free of them.
BTW; I did email the Free Software Foundation; from their perspective I _OWN_ my copy of Linux the same way I own the books on my bookshelf or the van in my driveway. I'm free to do whatever I like with it. Copyright (and thus the GPL) only applies to me if/when I make copies for distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think that sucks?
That should put an end to EULA pretty qucik.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Somethings amiss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares?
Screw 'em.
The only way to stop 'em is to stop handing over money to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares?
even if that means going after children on the net!!!!!!!!!!!
Atleast Michael Jackson screwed in private the riaa does it publicly!!!!!!!!!
ok that sucked didn't it,lol !!!!!
sorry lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM control on CDs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM control on CDs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM control on CDs
As much as I hate what the media industry is trying to do with DRM (pure nasty greed, that will make them the victims of their own actions soon), I do have a thing about the artist being paid for their work and controling the quality of the recordings.
And also, just because a shop decides to sell beans at five dollars a can, tells you you never actually own the contents and tells you that you can only eat them on a monday, alone in your living room with the curtains closed and the lights out - STILL doesnt give you the right to steal the beans!
They will get the message when people stop buying... but people ripping and distributing for free is giving them a scape-goat. they have legal excuses for thier behaviour and can claim the high moral ground - which is not good!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlimited Music for Free
I know, I know, it comes spiced up with annoying commercials, but hey, at least it's still free :-)
Stop the RIAA, don't buy its music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlimited Music for Free
although they got put down they are still trying .
pretty soon those bastards will be busting people's ass's for taping off the radio .....
the riaa isn't letting anybody have freedom when it comes to music any more .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Napster
To anyone who doubts that illegal file sharing is a serious problem, just think back to pre-DRM Napster. Or even to VHS. Or just use your imagination... if you could copy your neighbor's Camry, would you? I sure as hell would! I'd sell it illegally for profit, too! And you'd better bet that Toyota would be on all our asses trying to stop us in any way possible.
Digital content is a unique new concept, and we're still struggling with how to make up for it's inherent lack of copy protection, which most real-world, physical items inherently have. Artists deserve to be paid, and without protection, they definitely won't be. If the RIAA hadn't started this whole debacle, the original Napster would be installed on every PC in the world today and nobody would be paying for music (which, I'm guessing, wouldn't be being produced anymore either, except by low-budget garage-bands with crappy equipement). You can argue the whole "people are inherently honest and would pay" thing, but I'll just refer you back to Napster 1.0, and perhaps a few references on history and human nature.
DRM is not evil, it's just in evil hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Napster
I do take exception to your statement that no one would make music anymore if not for the money. One only has to look at any other hobby to see the falacy of that statement. Do only pro athletes play football or basketball? Are the pro athletes the only good athletes while all others are the athletic equivalents of "crappy garage bands"? Are intramural sports a program for pro-bowl or world series bound hopefuls? I mean, if they're not getting paid for it, why else would they do it?
Suppose a college athlete wins the Heisman but decides not to go pro: does he become a "crappy garage athlete"? If Michael Jordan were to play basketball now, would he suck?
An artist no longer getting paid millions of dollars before their album is released does not mean music creation will stop or suck. True, music companies have deep enough pockets to hire great audio engineering talent that can mix a mediocre album into a great album. True, they have the pockets to promote an album to a mass market which will invariably result in more sales. And it is also true that record companies can offer the artist enough money to live without having to worry about rent or food so they can devote more time to working on material. But it is also true that these things are not the only ingredients to good music.
Just because it appears on Clear Channel's playlist doesn't mean its good, and independantly produced "garage band" albums are not always crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who cares
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Playing CDs on a Computer now a privilege
Double standards make me ill and I will NEVER buy another BMG Sony product as long as I live.
Its a gross invasion of privacy as well as unfair to the consumer that deserves to know EVERYTHING they are buying in language the lay person can understand, not legalese.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]