Zany Netizens *Still* Insisting On Fair Use

[rolanaj]

I'm curious as to why dvd's are cheaper than cd's? Also don't like the idea of someone telling what I can play the cd's I buy on. Mind you since the Sony fiasco, they don't get played on my computer, who knows what they might think they have the right to put on my computer. I think the movie and music industries needs to take a look at their customers and figure out if they really want to sell stuff.

[zlim]

Since I don't like CDs sitting in a hot car, I think I should be allowed to burn a copy of the original to carry in the car. Then if my copy goes bad because of the heat, I burn another copy. The originals stay in the climate controlled house.A bit off topic...years ago I took some albums to a party. Someone took one of my good albums and replaced it with the same album but it had scatches in it. I started putting name labels on all my albums so I could be sure no one again pulled a switcheroo at a party. Today if someone requested me to bring CDs along, I'd prefer to bring a copy rather than the original so if it disappears, I'd still have my purchased music.

[ross549]

All my CDs are labelled with a sharpie. Quite effective. I also do not use originals in the car.

[daihard]

I hope that you do not think that I am in favor of the DCMA. I am strongly against it. In this thread, I was simply repeating what the DCMA-happy folks and execs would want you to beleive. The scope of what the DCMA provides for those people is simply unbeleivable.

No, I don't take your comments that way. There was just some things that I was hoping I was right about, which you turned out to know better. Not allowing "fair use" was just totally beyond my comprehension so I assumed the DMCA wasn't that bad. Now I know I was way too optimistic!

[Scot]

I would be careful using wikipedia as the sole arbiter of any information -- esp. a fine legal point. I'm not disputing anything anyone said in this thread. I think daihard may have the right interpretation. It's just that, wikipedia does not in all cases represent actual fact. Use multiple sources.Bottom line for me? I don't download music off the Internet, even though I own an iPod and several other MP3 players. My approach is to buy the CD and rip it. It's not just that I find all the legal crap annoying (and I do). It's that I want something tangible in my hand. I don't want to pay for something that lives on a hard disk or MP3 player only. I like having the backup. Burning CDs is just inconvenient compared to the amount you spend for a CD. I also like having the CD jacket. Color me old fashioned.But I completely agree that the day is coming when we -- and I mean the consumers of music, not the artists -- will completely break the lock that the recording industry has on the music industry.But here's the point on which some of you may differ: I don't think music should be free -- unless the artists want it to be so. Musicians have a right to be paid for their work. In fact, the problem with the music industry is that the musicians that don't play by the rules dictated by the recording industry are locked out. They don't get to eat. They have to play ball, and write, arrange, and play "pop" music in most cases in order to be successful financially.Think of the freedom of artistic expression we might experience if the studios and radio industury weren't controlling distribution.It's going to happen. And any attempt by Microsoft, Sony, Hollywood, and the recording industry to get in the way will eventually be steam-rollored by us. Because we don't want the middle man. And the technology is increasingly in place to circumvent the middle man. Copy-protection is, in my opinion, not a long-term solution that is foisted on users by monopolistic companies. It should be outlawed.But I repeat, musicians deserve the right to earn money for their creative work. So whatever solution we wind up with has to make that happen. Direct selling online seems like a likely plan. That means that music consumers will have to give something up. And I can't think of an obvious solution there. I don't think the honor system is going to work. The only music I would consider downloading is self-published stuff, "garage bands," people who are trying to exist outside the lines -- music you can't get any other way. In other words, the opposite of Metallica -- which I consider to be the biggest sell-out band in the world.Will MySpace.com some day be the host of a major blockbuster hit? I think so; MySpace or something like it. That's the signal event that I think will change the recording industry forever. But it will come from us. We have to show music can be distributed that way and succeed.-- Scot

[ross549]

But here's the point on which some of you may differ: I don't think music should be free -- unless the artists want it to be so. Musicians have a right to be paid for their work. In fact, the problem with the music industry is that the musicians that don't play by the rules dictated by the recording industry are locked out. They don't get to eat. They have to play ball, and write, arrange, and play "pop" music in most cases in order to be successful financially.

I agree with you there. Music cannot be 100% free, because a lot of time and effort goes into production of and album. I know this because I am one of the "sound guys" at my church and we put out a CD every week of the service. At a minimum, I am looking at abour four hours of prep, record, and finalizing before I even start burning the discs! And, these are not what I would call "mass distribution ready" CDs.However, in my life there is one large example of how "music sharing" actually netted the artist more money. When I was very young, my aunt gave me a copied tape of an album she got that year. I fell in love with the music, and ended up buying several of the artists albums over the years. If I had not been exposed to that particular artist's music at that time, I never would have heard of him. I still enjoy singing along with the music, and even my most vivid memories of one of the songs is where the song abrupty cut off on the tape, because the tape was not long enough! To this day, when I sing along with that particular song, I stop at the precise point that the tape cut off!I know I went off on a tangent there. The point is, music sharing has always been a method for artists to get their "message" out and spread the word. The recording industry had the same fits when tape players and recorders came out (so I hear, anyway- I was an infant at the time), but sales did flourish in spite of the possible wholesale infringment feared by the labels.Now, this present age does present another unique problem. How do the record labels distribute music online and keep the record sales up overall? I don't know. Know this though... there will always be people who can hack their way around the DRM, forcing the CRM maker to patch the hole. It will go back and forth.... lust like this Wired news article mentions:http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,71738-0.htmlFrom what I've read in the last week, the patch issued by Microsoft has already been re-hacked! Obviously, this is a flawed system that will not succeed.In order for me to start buying music online, the store I use will have to have several features:1. No DRM of any kind. I do not want the record labels to tell me what I can and cannot play my music on. A shining example of how not to do business is Amazon's Unbox service for movies:http://www.uninnovate.com/2006/09/08/amazo...restrictions-4/2. The music must be cross-platform playable. I will not be locked into a single OS so I can play my music. Looks like mp3 and ogg are my best bet right now.3. High quality rips. 128K mp3 simply does not cut it for me. I rip my music at 192. Being one of "those sound guys" means I have very discriminating ears. Whatever happened to SACD and DVD-Audio anyway? Anybody recognize those?4. I must have a way to easily restore my music collection if my hard drive fails.There's my list. I am certain I can come up with more. On second thought.... I'll just buy the CDs for now. Also, I will try to buy direct from the artist, since they get such a low cut from CD sales in a normal record store. If I remember correctly, it is in the single digit precentage.AdamEDIT:

I would be careful using wikipedia as the sole arbiter of any information -- esp. a fine legal point. I'm not disputing anything anyone said in this thread. I think daihard may have the right interpretation. It's just that, wikipedia does not in all cases represent actual fact. Use multiple sources.

I do not use Wikipedia as my sole source of information. 99.9% of the time, it is factual. I was only referencing it since the information was in one spot and laid out in an easy to read format. I have formed my opinions based on reaqding dozens, if not hundreds of stories about DRM, fair use, etc.

[Guest LilBambi]

I agree with EVERYTHING Scot and Adam said here. It's how I have always felt about this.Thanks to both of you for being so succinct in getting the wording down!

[daihard]

I agree with EVERYTHING Scot and Adam said here. It's how I have always felt about this.Thanks to both of you for being so succinct in getting the wording down!

Same here. I've never considered music to be free, nor have I believed it should be. I'm more than happy to pay my due to the artists that create the music I listen to. That's part of the reason I use iTunes to purchase music online. You all know that I loathe DRM, but my take is that buying music from Apple will be more true to my belief than downloading it illegally.As for having physical CD's, I'd much rather have just digital copies on my hard disks than have to keep the CDs somewhere at home. I have a server storing all the music files so it can be accessed from my computer, my wife's, and the Media Centre machine in the family room. Edited September 10, 2006 by daihard

[epp_b]

But I repeat, musicians deserve the right to earn money for their creative work. So whatever solution we wind up with has to make that happen. Direct selling online seems like a likely plan. That means that music consumers will have to give something up. And I can't think of an obvious solution there. I don't think the honor system is going to work.

I don't know about that. As long as it's made as easy or easier than downloading a song via a P2P protocol, I, for one, would gladly choose to support the artist knowing that not a cent is going to the RIAA. Perhaps a solution is a "commons fund" collected by your ISP (and only if you use the benefits of that fund by downloading music) that is distributed to artists based on P2P statistics.

Will MySpace.com some day be the host of a major blockbuster hit? I think so; MySpace or something like it. That's the signal event that I think will change the recording industry forever. But it will come from us. We have to show music can be distributed that way and succeed.

You may be right, and as much as I consider MySpace to be an abysmal wasteland of CSS trash and grammatically polluted language, selling flat MP3's is the ideal way to go; especially if they've got a good selling model. I would consider Emusic, but I can't make use of 40 songs a month!

[Guest LilBambi]

daihard, the only problem is, they can change the ToS at any time. They can change it to say, you can only have use of the songs you have for x number of months and all your songs would be worthless. You are technically not buying songs, but renting them, dependent upon the good graces of the music service. ALL music services make it very clear that they can change the ToS at any time, which is particularly troubling for those with DRM'd music.This is why I prefer unencumbered CDs. I own them. They can't tell me where I can listen to them, what format I can convert them to, and they can't turn them off. And if something happens to my music on my computer, I can always rip it from the CD again.The same can not be said for music 'rented' by users of DRM'd music services because even if you have your music backed up, if they change the ToS, you could never allow that music to see the light of the Internet again or the switch could be turned off on the music you have 'purchased' errr, 'rented.'

[lewmur]

The same can not be said for music 'rented' by users of DRM'd music services because even if you have your music backed up, if they change the ToS, you could never allow that music to see the light of the Internet again or the switch could be turned off on the music you have 'purchased' errr, 'rented.'

If the DRM is designed correctly, it could require "renewing" via the net. every so often. Setting the date back on the computer wouldn't even help if the date check isn't tied to the system clock.

[daihard]

daihard, the only problem is, they can change the ToS at any time. They can change it to say, you can only have use of the songs you have for x number of months and all your songs would be worthless. You are technically not buying songs, but renting them, dependent upon the good graces of the music service. ALL music services make it very clear that they can change the ToS at any time, which is particularly troubling for those with DRM'd music.

That's true. OTOH, buying an entire CD just to listen to a couple of songs on it would not be too feasible to me either.

[rbdietz]

but other than my view of cd's, i agree with scot's / adam's thesis, indeed what is shackeling us copyright-wise will bust and lead to another method of music / movie commerce.

Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub;It is the center hole that makes it useful.Shape clay into a vessel;It is the space within that makes it useful.Cut doors and windows for a room;It is the holes which make it useful.Therefore profit comes from what is there;Usefulness from what is not there.

[epp_b]

If the DRM is designed correctly

The only way DRM can be designed correctly is by being non-existant.

Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub;It is the center hole that makes it useful.Shape clay into a vessel;It is the space within that makes it useful.Cut doors and windows for a room;It is the holes which make it useful.Therefore profit comes from what is there;Usefulness from what is not there.

I like that! Very wise a clever...