Gartner Survey: Consumers Don't Want Crippled CDs 452
robkill writes "According to GartnerG2, 77% of consumers believe they should be allowed to copy CD's for personal use in another device. 82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's. Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention. More details can be found in this PC World article."
Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand (Score:4, Interesting)
A brief but detailed summary can be found here: http://tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk/~nick/UnionDebate/
Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand (Score:3, Informative)
http://tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk/~nick/UnionDebate/ [ox.ac.uk]
Posting as AC to prove i'm not whoring karma
Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand (Score:4, Informative)
Slashdot ran this story [slashdot.org] about it on Friday.
Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand (Score:4, Insightful)
They know people will still buy the CD's even if they can't be copied. Take for example DVD's when they were first released, how many slashdotters bought DVD players and discs before they could copy them? My bet would be a good portion of us, and we are the ones that go looking for ways to copy them. Do you think the average consumer even knows it's possible to copy a DVD disc?
So again I ask, why will the RIAA care what people want with regards to copying CD's. They know full well, even if CD's can't be copied they aren't going to lose sales. All those people that bought CD's before are still buying them now and will continue to do so in the future. With perhaps the exception of a few slashdotters we all still buy CD's, although we bitch and moan about it. Have a significant amount of us actually stopped buying CD's outright?
I doubt it. The RIAA also believes (rightly or wrongly), that at least a portion of those people pirating music will fork over for the CD's if they can't find the music they want.
Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand (Score:5, Insightful)
If a CD won't rip to MP3 I won't buy it, because I won't be able to listen to it the way I prefer to (on iPod). There are millions others like me.
Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um... (Score:3, Funny)
And if you've got some friends into MST3K, it's a good, cheap source of raw material.
The RIAA is doing better than I thought (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you have a graph or some history showing the increased popularity of the inability to copy cd's AND have solid proof it's the RIAA... I'll attribute the other 23% to other factors as well as the riaa.
-s
Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the other factors that comes to mind is the lemming-like-stupidity of alot of people.
Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily. My guess is that the majority of the 23% that said nay simply didn't care. Turn on the TV and watch some Jerry Springer - do you think people of such intellectual caliber would even know how to make a copy of the CD? If they don't even know how to make copies, why would they even care if they can make one or not?
Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought (Score:3)
Maybe not all the 23% knows how to burn a cd, but I bet 90% know how to make a tape from CD.
So I wonder why they chose the way they did if they do have the technical skill to make tapes.
Of course they could be lying...as many do when asked how much beer they drink (and then the anthropologist does a study at the trash dump and finds out the 3 that admitted to drinking must drink 90% of the beer in town.)
Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought (Score:3, Insightful)
How much did they pay (or what were they offering in exchange) for that 23%?
The other question: How many of those 23% knew that they were talking about information CDs and not CDs that generate interest??
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, 99.92% of all customers don't want their products broken, according to a recent survey.
and around 99.99% of all citizens don't want to pay taxes...
Another survey question... (Score:4, Interesting)
Somehow I venture to believe the respondents might answer somewhere closer to 100%.
Re:Another survey question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or
"Do you believe that businesses should be allowed to distribute media that prevents the illegal copying and re-distribution of their content?"
With art as in politics, it's all in where you draw the line.
Re:Another survey question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another survey question... (Score:5, Insightful)
The questions I asked were posed to demonstrate that surveys tend to use loaded questions. In the case of the parent poster, the question is obviously loaded in favour of the 'consumer's rights' cause. The questions I proposed were obviously loaded in the other direction, and yet phrased in such a way that answering 'yes' doesn't appear disagreeable.
As for my first question. I understand fair use rights. I think they're good. However they do pose a problem, and that is what my first question is pointing to.
And I have no problem with them trying to prevent illegal copying and distribution, so long as it doesn't infringe on my legal copying.
Then you have a problem, as that is exactly what they are trying to do.
Re:Another survey question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but what does that have to do with the RIAA?
Re:Another survey question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm... Nothing... ?? But then, neither does the article... Who said ANYTHING about the RIAA within the context of the post or article?
The RIAAis trying, thorugh various means, to push copy-protected CDs on us. Therefore, any discussion about copy-protected CDs automatically involves the RIAA.
Now, this particular thread is about how the wording of a question can alter the responses recieved. For instance, as you pointed out, asking "do you think artists should be compensated..." would make people morelikely to answer in favor of copy-protected CDs; I was merely pointing out that the RIAA, and therfore copy-protected CDs, have absolutly nothing to do with ensuring artists are fairly compensated.
fixed that last bit for ya (Score:3, Insightful)
In order to more accurately reflect the reality of crippled media, and since pirates probably don't buy those CD's, I'll rephrase your second one as
Re:Another survey question... (Score:4, Funny)
Q: Do you believe you are entitled to fair use of copyrighted works as provided under US copyright law?
42% What the hell is fair use?
27% Ernest Hemingway
18% Uh, are you guys with Elimidate?
7% Da na na na-na - HEY!
4% You know, I always fast forward through the FBI warning, so I really can't say
2% Yes
Crippled CDs? (Score:5, Funny)
They prefer to be called "digitally challenged" CDs.
Thank you.
Who are these people who answered otherwise? (Score:5, Funny)
82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's.
In other news, 18% of consumers are thrilled that their new computer came with a retractible cup-holder.
My guess (Score:4, Interesting)
"Do you think you should be able to make backups of your music CDs to other media?"
"Well uh... no, I really don't care about that."
I'm sure there are some who have succombed to the propaganda, but probably not all, or even most, of the "no" people.
I wonder about the minority (Score:2, Redundant)
Can we get some bleach for the gene pool please?
Consumers? (Score:5, Insightful)
When will the RIAA learn (Score:5, Insightful)
Case Study:
My mom comes by my appartment once in a while to say hi, and drop off a basket of fresh home baked muffins (thanks Mom). She hears, and likes the celtic songs playing on the stereo and asks who the artist is.
"It's a mix of artists I downloaded from the internet." I reply. Then burn a copy of the mp3s to a cd, and give it to her.
About a month later she has become hooked on a couple artists and has bought their cd's.
Variations of this scenario have played out a couple times and my mom has complained that every time I give her a CD of MP3s she ends up spending 100 bucks at A&B Sound.
I believe this is a common scenario. People download a bunch of songs and then every once in a while a particular artist strikes the right chord and they look for more music from that artist. The problem with the internet is that there is a lot of junk, and it is nearly impossible to download a whole album from one artist and get decent quality for every song. So many of us go out and by the CD.
Re:When will the RIAA learn (Score:3, Insightful)
CDs too easy to download? Easy solve for the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if it's too easy to download an album, how about make the album bigger?
For example: I like quality in my CDs, so though I download music at 128kbps MP3s (or 192, if I can find it), if I find an album with three or more songs I like, I go out and buy it - then I get the higher quality, uncompressed 44.1kHz, 16-bit audio.
So, you ask, what happens when connection speeds are such that I can just download the entire uncompressed album?
Well, sure, that will happen, but how about the music industry stepping up to the challenge and offering more - more incentive to buy the full version? For instance, DVD-A (or SACD) with high resolution, multi-channel audio, and with some of the extra room on the album, maybe include a video or two. That would be worth purchase, 'cause either you have to compress the whole thing down horribly, or wait for a 9 GB download.
People will still strip off the audio and compress it to MP3s, or submix down to 2-channel and downconvert it, but the loss of quality becomes equivalent to the loss of quality with MP3s now... or even worse.
The RIAA wants me to buy more CDs rather than downloading them? Then, how about offer me something that makes it worthwhile for me to go purchase CDs.
-T
So... (Score:3, Funny)
Do you? (Your post doesn't mention you purchasing anything, just downloading celtic MP3s.)
- A.P.
And in recent news, (Score:2)
Re:And in recent news, (Score:5, Funny)
My, aren't we quite the optimist today?
How many people actually know about this issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Crippled CDs.. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm all for respecting peoples' various levels of abilities, but if they think I'm going to build a small ramp to my CD tray just so their crippled CDs can play.. well they've got another thing coming.
I'm calling the ACLU (Score:5, Funny)
Suprised (Score:2, Funny)
No, really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you prefer:
1. CDs that you can listen to however/whenever you want
2. CDs that destroy your CD-ROM's firmware
Here's a wakeup call for Hollywood and all of the Software firms: when an American buys something, even a CD, movie, or program, he/she thinks that they now own it. that's how it's always been. That's how it still is with books. That's how it's going to be with your products once people get tired of your DRM antics.
18%? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm hoping the other 18% checked the 3) I don't understand this question option.
If 18% of the public believes they shouldn't have the right to back-up their own software, we should begin to panic.
Then again, 18% of the public probably believes in Santa Clause, including G. W. Bush, the Lesser.
Talisman
I also believe (Score:5, Insightful)
let's see, who do you think will have more influence - a poll that shows roughly 80% of constituents don't want a certain 'feature' (half of those constituents will likely be democrat, half republican. halve that again for the actual numbers that will vote..)
OR
the HUGE amounts of contribution money donated by industry to congressional representatives to ensure their voice is heard fairly.
In order to clear up consumer rights issues, you must first clear up congressional responsibility issues. Stop allowing corporations to be treated as more important citizens than the actual voting citizens first.
I dont think public opinion matters... (Score:3, Insightful)
Survey Suggestions (Score:2, Interesting)
What consumers want...? (Score:4, Interesting)
Polls are not news; information that moves polls is. There was a day when journalists shunned polls, now they are the basis for a story.
Re:What consumers want...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman... (Score:3, Funny)
No, let's hope not. Personally, I'd rather see them maintain their delusions until they're no longer in office. After that, they can delude as they see fit.
It's a minor issue to most voters (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of voters won't care a bit. Yes, they'd like non-crippled CDs, but that won't sway their voting. People usually vote based on whether someone is Republican or Democratic - the stance the candidate takes on important issues is (depressingly) unimportant to most people.
The real question... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The real question... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have already voted, several times. Unfortunately, they seem to have confused my voting with a revenue theoretically lost to piracy. No, it's revenue lost because I don't want to risk buying a crippled CD!
Voting (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA has a tough time of counting the votes. If you buy crippleware, that counts as a "yes" vote for crippleware. If you don't buy crippleware, it's not really a "no" vote for crippleware, because any "no" votes are considered piracy.
An honest comparison would be the sales of otherwise identical albums, selling the crippled and uncrippled side-by-side for the same price. Until that happens, it's really like Saddam running against nobody in the Iraqi "election".
Pay for something that's free? (Score:5, Interesting)
BOTTLED WATER
Two words for you! (Score:5, Insightful)
LEAD PIPES!
Come to NYC and drink the tap water that has been sitting in 100 year old lead pipes before it comes out of your faucet. You will LOVE bottled water. Plus, you actually don't get free water unless you are sucking up the scummy lake or river water filled with parasites. Tap water is paid for by taxes. No matter what, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Re:Two words for you! (Score:3, Interesting)
I do agree that municipal water leaves much to be desired since it's quite often clorinated/ozoned to kill any critters in it and may have flourine added to give people nice healthy teeth. Bottled water does taste much better, but if you have a filter for the tap water it's just as good.
subsolar
Nice idiot bait (Score:3, Informative)
For God's sake people, chlorinated tap water will likely contain fewer microbes than spring water, which comes out of the damned GROUND. If you're lucky. Know where aquafina and dasani come from? Chlorinated tap water with some salts added. So you're paying $2 a bottle for what you can get for (essentially) free. Morons.
If you have any questions about your tap water, you have the right to get the full results of the water testing, at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm
Here is a link to LA's water.
http://www.ladwp.com/water/quality/Annual/AnnRep0
And here's New York's:
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/html/wsstate.htm
I would say a small fraction of the country actually lives in an area where the water is actually hazardous. Both NY and LA were pretty damned good, actually. I've done tests on water, you'd be surprised how good tap water is in most places.
But congratulations on swallowing the FUD of the bottled water industry! I suppose you'll follow suit with the **AA.
Re:Nice idiot bait (Score:3, Insightful)
I call bullshit.
The house I've lived in for the last while is supplied by a well (yes, the water comes out of the "damned GROUND"). Every six months we send a sample of the water to a local lab to test for parasites and bacteria. It always comes back with zeroes across the board; zero E. Coli, zero coliform, etc. And this is without one drop of chlorine, bromine, or anything else.
Know where aquafina and dasani come from? Chlorinated tap water with some salts added. So you're paying $2 a bottle for what you can get for (essentially) free. Morons.
Take chlorinated tap water and run it through a heavy-duty reverse osmosis filter (among other filters) like Coca-Cola does with Dasani, and you end up with basically nothing but dihydrogen monoxide (pure water). Then they add some minerals back into the water to give it some taste (otherwise it would be like drinking distilled water, which actually isn't as good for you and also tastes yucky).
Chlorine and fluorine don't taste good, which is why many people in areas with heavily-treated (or high-iron-content, for example) water prefer bottled water to their tap water. Yes, it costs more, but it's more pleasant.
Now who's the moron?
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Backup? (Score:4, Interesting)
One thing that the synopsis fails to include is the like:
60 percent said they should be able to give copies of CDs to members of their families.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the RIAA and their heavy handed tactics, nor of the major media companies that are wringing every last dime out of the transaction at the expense of the artist and the consumer. But, by the same token, if no one is buying cds anymore, what impetous is there for your favourite band to bother making one?
Me. (Score:5, Insightful)
I do.
Really. I own two collector's editions of some very obscure music and I'd much rather play the backups than the original disks. So I make exact backups of them and then safely put the originals away.
I don't give them away to friends, I don't share them online through a P2P service, I don't do anything like that. I make a copy for the car and that's that. I want to keep the originals nice and safe; I use a copy for the car and Ogg for the computer.
When I buy a video game that requires me to use the CD, I try and use a copy as well, since I'd much rather risk accidently destroying a copy of my Warcraft III Collector's Edition (yeah, I know, Vivendi=Evil - quiet) then the original disk itself.
If I can figure out how to make a copy of UT2003 I'd do it to so I can let the original disks sit out of harms way (especially with the stupid "must have CD in the drive" shenanigans that often have disks out on top of the case during the burn of another disk or the install of something else - the joys of being a software developer under Windows - *sigh*).
Copy prohibition is only annoying for the legitimate purchases of content. The developers for UT2003 understood that and have admitted it in interviews. It's too bad that the publishing houses haven't figured that out yet and that I'm forced to have the stupid CD in my computer just so UT2003 can be convinced that even with a valid CD key I'm not some evil pirate.
When I buy music, I want to make an Ogg on my computer and a copy for my car. I then leave the disk safely away for potential future re-ripping and encoding to Ogg2 or the next great codec.
When my Dad buys a CD, he uses Roxio Easy-CD Creator to encode it to MP3 and then makes mixes of them for his car. My mother also encodes every CD she wants for easy access (although I don't know exactly what program she uses).
But notice that in these cases, we all legitamitely have the CD! I bought my copy of UT2003 and would be much obliged if Atari would trust me enough to use the game without the CD in the drive.
I have yet to see any of these restrictions doing anything to harm pirates. It just harms the honest consumer. I still buy CDs (a full four this year - and I haven't illegally downloaded anything else - and of those four, only two were through RIAA members) and support the companies that make games I like to play. But I still see the tracks available online, and know people who make copies of "copy protected" CDs simply to prove it's possible. And I'll bet all the real pirates of content and still happily selling their illegal $2 CDs out on the black market, laughing at means that only serve to force the honest user to either spend more money on additional CDs or give up functionality they've come to expect from their computers.
It annoys me.
Re:Backup? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well here in NZ where charting CDs cost as much as $35 each, backing them up onto a $1 CDR constitutes cheap insurance against damage.
If you argue that it's not worth spending a buck to protect $35 then chances are your house and other posessions are also uninsured -- after all, why spend money to protect your assets?
Of course the RIAA could kill the need/right/claim to backup CDs by offering an "at cost media replacement" service...
If they were prepared to replace a scratched or otherwise unusable original CD for just the price of the media (say $1) then they could say "you don't need to back them up" -- and that would add huge weight to their copy-protection pitch.
However, as we well know, the RIAA isn't interested in being fair.
Which leaves us wondering exactly what you're buying when you purchase a music CD.
It can't be a license to listen to the music or they'd be happy to replace the media at cost should it get damaged.
That means you must really be paying a significant amount of money just for the plastic and aluminum that make up the disk itself. In which case -- who the hell do they think they are trying to tell us that, having paid for it, we can't do whatever we want with it (including duplication for fair use purposes).
It strikes me that the RIAA want to have their cake and eat it to.
How can so many really stupid people be in control of so much money? Me thinks it can't be simply by virtue of hard work.
Just a question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should the artist, who performs a song once, get paid every time someone wants to hear that song? They expend no additional effort regardless of how many times a CD is copied or their music is played.
Consider programming, for example. Most programmers are paid to produce something, and very few, if any, receive royalties every time their programs are run. Why should it be any different for "artists" - who like programmers, are creative, but considerable better compensated considering the actual amount of work they do.
Notice that I'm not saying that performers shouldn't be compensated, but rather that they aren't entitled to be compensated for doing nothing. I have no problem with paying to see an artist performing live, because in that case, they are actually working. But how am I depriving an artist of their "fair share" if I copy a CD that I wouldn't have paid for in the first place? What if I don't buy CD's, but rather just listen to the radio? Am I stealing then? (I enjoy the music, but I didn't pay for it!) What's the difference?
What it comes down to is plain and simple greed. The record companies and artists want to be compensated for doing nothing.
I'm not saying that a musician's life isn't hard, but no one forced these people to become musicians. A career in music is not an entitlement. If you can't make a living as a musician, actually performing live, then maybe you shouldn't be in the business.
Re:Just a question... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) If you think artists are "better compensated" for their work than programmers are, you must not know any artists or programmers. The statement is so wrong it's irrefutable--you should start a religion. But, an example: I'm an "artist." I write books, and make music for films. That's my job. And I make more money than anyone I know--except my friends who are programmers. My hourly wage for writing a book, I've calculated, runs about $2.20 US. Dollars. Two of them, and twenty cents. Years of work for a few thousand dollars--the high life indeed. (In case you don't like the analogy: I'm also in a band that's "critically acclaimed" but not famous; we lose money every time we even think about music.) My most successful programmer friend guesses he makes about $200 US per hour. He "guesses" that because he works so little and makes so much, he can't stop laughing long enough to bust out his calculator. Neither of us are typical, I'm sure, but there's more of him and me than there are of Britney Spears and RMS. Still, explain to me in detail how sickeningly overpaid and lazy I am, please.
2) Royalties exist so that artists can make whatever they want, and if people buy it, they can get paid for having worked--just like telemarketers and strippers. Ideally, this takes artistic decisions out of the hands of patrons and media corps--for artists willing to risk being utterly destitute should their work not sell--and puts them the hands of...whoever. Isn't that neat? It's, like, an almost-ideal version of capitalism or something.
(As for the whole "playing live" argument: Movies, paintings, books, and irreproducible studio-created music all exist; should they not? Because that's all "doing nothing," right? DVDs, reproductions of paintings, books, and records are already cheap, because they're easy to make once all the work is done. Like any other manufactured good is. I mean, should Ferraris cost $1000 each? Because all the "real work" was done before the first one went off the assembly line, and those greedy car-designing bastards expect you to spend a hundred grand on a pile of scrap-metal while they're off on vacation--right? The nerve.)
3) Everything you said above is a justification for your being a cheap and envious person. I admit I probably have much better luck with the art-hotties than you do, but you're rather too rabid about all this, don't you think? You're spitting bold tags all over the screen. Sigmund Freud wrote some books you should probably read. And you can steal them without guilt--dead men collect no royalties.
Re:Backup? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think audio CDs should be backed up. If I had done proper backups, a certain rare CD which is no longer produced would not have been destroyed when the CD changer machine broke down.
Similarly, would you leave your original CDs in a car? I woudln't. That is why I burn copies of the legally purchased originals and play them in the car.
Re:Backup? (Score:4, Insightful)
Until I can take my scratched CD back to Best Buy and get a new copy for the cost of media - since I've already purchased a license to listen to the damn thing - then YES i want to be able to make a backup as is my right under the law.
And on a related topic -- if the stupid CD/Book/game is now longer avaailable because it's "out of print", then all talk of copyright is moot. If I make an unauthorized copy, how is it piracy when the origional isn't avaialble for sale?
Re:Backup? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a really crappy CD player in my car (I had no choice, I was a college student and my radio croaked. I got it for free. Sue me). When I insert a CD, it leaves two nice big scars on it (not scratches, *SCARS*). On retail CDs, it usually doesn't hurt them much, but If I just spent 15 dollars on a cd [floggingmolly.com], I don't want to take the chance of losing it. Sure, it's not much of an investment compared to other things I own, it's still something I own, and I'm not going to pay every three weeks to get a new copy of that cd.
While my CD player kills cd-r's after only two or three insertions, a cd-r costs me... about a dime. I can live with a dime loss ever couple weeks (I generally listen to the same cd for long periods of time
and as for "ripping off the artist". I made two copies of this cd. One for my cousin, and another for a friend who happens to be a teacher. My cousin played it for a couple of his friends, then both of them went and bought the last two copies of it at the local warehouse. My teacher friend played it for her classroom, and apparently three of the students decided to go buy it themselves. I'm sure glad I ripped off the band, and got them to sell five more copies than if I hadn't made those copies.
All that being said, Flogging molly is a fucking great band.
That's all, go about your business.
Not likely to help (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Ignorance. Most people don't know that there are people in Congress being payed to take those rights away from them. That would involve complex actions like searching out information (hey, it's not like the major media outlet owned papers are covering this issue in depth). It might even require the average American to read at a high school level, and we all know that's a pipe dream. And thus they won't find it out till it's too late. Which leads into..
2. Apathy. Nobody stands up for their rights any more. Especially when it's a little thing like copying a CD. Then having chips implanted into their TVs to prevent them from deviously recording the show they'll be missing while working the second job to pay for all their new compliant electronics. Then having to pony up tax money for the much needed "Buy Jack Valenti a gold plated limo every six months" fund when even those measures don't save the entertainment industry from the greed, idiocy, and fraud of those running it. Then having the FBI wiretap all communications, open all mail, and sneak hidden cameras into every home to make sure no piracy is occuring. Well, that's the ones who don't get drafted for our wars to fight terrorism in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Western Europe, China, Mexico, Canada, and New York.
The question's wording is important. (Score:2)
Did the questions really ask whether they thought they
Manipulating a poll like this is extremely easy--and as easy to do by accident as on purpose. You can't rely on numbers like this.
Seems low to me (or Why not 100%?) (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, I've never met anyone that felt that they shouldn't be able to copy their music to another format. I realize I'm just a sheltered GNU/Linux geek and all that, but really...what did the other 23% or 18% (resp.) of people mean when they said they shouldn't copy music to other formats or make backups? Were they just ignorant that such things could be done? Were they really so afraid of some boogeyman of copyright enforcement that they think exists to track down and kill so-called pirates? Or do the RIAA and MPAA really account for that large of a chunk of our population?
Has anyone on
From the pages of Duh Journal. (Score:5, Funny)
It Doesn't Matter How Many Believe.. (Score:2, Insightful)
We can cite polls and percentages all day, but until more people start excercising the right to vote, Hollings stance on the issue wont change.
I may be slightly off here, but I believe less than half the eligible population voted in the last presidential election.
In a related story... (Score:2, Insightful)
And in other news. (Score:3, Funny)
The way of CD-copying in Denmark (Score:5, Informative)
This, of course, has caused tons of contreversy, but the fact is, that the Danish government has recognized the right of the individual to manipulate, compile and even share legally purchased music...
I am not sure if this harms the music industry, and there has been talk about putting a small price on getting CDs from the library, but for now, it is totally free, and totally legal.
Oh... btw - artist of course get the regular royalties from people getting their CDs at the library... so they DO earn some from it.
- Tha Lamer, Tha Bunny...
Re:The way of CD-copying in Denmark (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh, that's technically legal here in the US too, odd isn't it?
Hrm.. (Score:3, Funny)
Completely flawed premise (Score:5, Insightful)
>The copy-protected CDs limit users options--preventing them from making a copy of the CD to play in their car, for example, as one could with a cassette tape.
this is 100% BS.
Copy-protected CD do NOT stop someone from making a copy of the CD to play in their car, for example.
There is NO CD that can stop you from doing this.
1. Get a 1/8" to 1/8" cable from Radio Shack
2. Plug one end into a CD player that the CD plays in
3. Plug the other end into your computer
4. Hit "play" on the CD player at the same time you hit "record" on your computer's audio recording program.
99% of people will NOT be able to tell the difference when listening to the "unmakable" CD in their car.
They will, also, be able to make mixes.. that is, they can put tracks from MULTPILE "copy protected" circular-shiny-thingies-that-only-play-in-older-c
The only copy-protected music CD is the one that doesn't play in ANY CD player.
There is no way to stop me from copying the information from a media which allows me to hear, see, smell or taste. At least, not a copy which is "close enough" for me not to care that its a "perfect" copy.
Re:Completely flawed premise (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Completely flawed premise (Score:5, Insightful)
Gartner: Masters of the Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
* Desktop computers cost a wad of cash to support
* Servers cost a wad of cash to support
* Companies want their computer stuff for cheap (TCO or Total Cost of Ownership)
* Losing cusotmers is expensive (Customer relationship management)
* Huge databases will be the norm in a few years (I love how this one is always true)
and joining Gartner's other brilliant flashes of the obvious:
* Consumers want to be able to use the software/music/movies/whatever they buy!
Maybe I should write a few cheesy white papers like "Controling the transaction cost of email" or "Why having an accounting system is important" and put on a few webinars... the boom, I could hire a bunch of marketing flunk outs and sell seats in "executive briefings" or cobranded reports for big $$$...
I suppose I should lighten up on Gartner - they do serve a purpose: they make people want to spend inordinate ammounts of money on trendy software and therefore keep a lot of us slashdot types employed.
$G
Hope is not enough... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, if You really cared about this issue, You'd not sit only at home and hope that politicians listen, but You'd get out there and support those who are fighting for You by joining the EFF [eff.org].
Fight back!
Why I haven't been buying CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
2. I can get (sometimes) lower quality stuff from free via P2P.
3. I'm afraid that it will be crippled
Combine #1 and #3 and #2 is the only choice left for me.
Some business models are just not meant to survive forever. The Recording Industry should have begun to realize this 4 or 5 years ago, when MP3's first began to become popular, but instead they missed the boat, and decided to fight anyone that got on the boat. Hurt your consumers. Hurt your musicians. Given the fact that many people see the Recording Industry as dishonest (anyone remember the fact that they were recently found guilty of price fixing?), it's no wonder why we don't feel the least bit guilty about downloading from Kazaa, Morpheus, etc.
Nevertheless, most people prefer to be honest, overall. If the music industry starts selling new MP3 songs for $1/song and old ones for $0.25/song, they would likely see their profits higher than ever before, and kazaa would simply become a fringe group of people.
Gartner Group... (Score:4, Funny)
Finally some solid numbers... (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently discovered that some of the MP3's I've ripped from CD's which I own now have just barely audible clicks and pops in the background. At first, I chalked it up to scratches, but upon observation of the original CD in perfect condition, realized that I had become a victim of the Cactus Data Shield.
So I've decided that I won't buy another CD until it's mandated by law that Copy Restricted CD's be clearly labeled. And then, I won't buy copy restricted CD's.
Quite frankly, I understand why people download music for free and don't believe it to be "theft" - they grew up listening to the radio, and expect free music. Even when they want to do the "right thing" and pay the artist, they find that what they get on the CD is wholly inferior to what they can download on the 'net for free. Why should someone pay for something that they aren't sure will even work with their audio equipment? Why would anyone spend money for something that might work with their system, when they can get the same music of better quality for free?
I can't help but wonder how many others have simply stopped buying CD's because they find that they can't listen to the music in the manner of their choosing.
It all boils down to the RIAA shooting themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
well, that's the way most people look at it anyways. and honestly, I don't think that they're that far off from the mark. there's something to be said for free distribution of music getting the band's name out there, making for a much more packed venue when it comes tour time. I mean, there's quite a few times when I personally have had a friend give me a CD or MP3 and thought, "wow, this is pretty good. I'm going to go to their show whenever they come to town." In the vast majority of the public's eyes, they want the music and they want to help the artist. no middle-man.
They had to do a STUDY to find this out? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Cost the same, most likely more than current CD's, which have increased in price even as the cost of production has decreased.
2. Have lower audio quality (if watermarked, ala SDMI) than current CD's.
3. Won't allow them to do as much as current CD's.
It's a lose-lose-lose for the customer. I'm shocked that they got a sample THAT HIGH that would put up with them.
Since when do the consumers count? (Score:4, Interesting)
Its all a matter of forcing us to continue to provide money, in their terms, to the state/corporation regardless of what we want/need.
Good example is digital TV mandate, sales drop off so government forces us back into the market by making what we have un-.useable, much to the glee of the industry.
Re:Since when do the consumers count? (Score:3, Informative)
I agree, but you forgot one major ingredient in the pie. Illegal monopolies. Forcing us to provide money on their terms is only possible in a monopoly. It's how the music industry, movie industry, and microsoft work. And the scary part is that the US government won't break it up right now because it will flush the economy down the toilet (in the short term) even faster than Dubyah has managed to do it.
Re:Since when do the consumers count? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its smoke (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, you're spewing the smoke. (Score:3, Interesting)
In Other News: (Score:5, Funny)
A local Best Buy retailer was inundated with a crowd of screaming teenagers and adults who couldn't wait to get their hands on a new CD containing the latest in digital restrictions management technology.
"It's so amazing how far music has come in the last 5 decades.", said 18-year-old Tricia James, clutching her copy of the new CD, a reissue of Three Dog Night's 1970 release, Naturally.
"It's always the consumers who drive initiatives like this.", commente Hilary Rosen, chairperson of the RIAA,at a press conference this Wednesday. "Our customers demand stringent limitations that prevent freeloaders from getting out of paying for another CD if their original store-bought CD becomes too scratched to play, and we deliver them. It adds value to our product."
"And this is just the tip of the iceberg", interjected the MPAA chairman, Jack Valenti. "This same technology can be applied to television, food, and even movies. I can't believe that in the 100-or-so years film has been around, theater operators didn't realize that people have TWO eyes, effectively giving them two identical copies of the same movie, one of which isn't being paid for. We are developing a simple, fair solution for this: either the theater patron will pay double the normal price of a movie, or they will be forced to wear a pirate-like eye patch."
"But aren't pirates the people you are trying to get rid of?" inquired a skeptic reporter from the Philadelphia Observer. Hilary Rosen quickly and conclusively answered this one by saying "Ha ha, yeah, I guess that's a little ironic isn't it? Yaarrgh, maytee!".
However the teenagers at the Grassy Park Best Buy aren't quite THAT optimistic. "Eye patches? I mean I'm all for some more rights management, but it'll be som endeaver to pull it off" said an unsure 15-year-old named Brian Coqueville. "Maybe if they start putting cool corporate logos on the patches, I'll be interested."
Jill Holmsworth, 21 still too giddy after the purchase of her new crippled disc to talk about anything else. "It's like almost an S&M thing for me. You no, like when someone ties you up and you're like No! No more! but deep down inside you love that stable,predictable feeling that the restraints give you. DRM is just like that, only they're DIGITAL restrictions, which are like ten times as good!"
Analogue!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Only difference being, rip the CD on "Analogue Input" mode. Easy! If everyone did this instead of getting pissed about it, the RIAA would possibly get bored and wander off...and maybe design CDs glued into the jewel case or something.
A common legal logical fallacy (Score:4, Informative)
Another important thing: you have to show definitive proof to the extent the new prohibition will work. On the fully automatic firearm ban you can say that outside a few extreme cases, it has worked pretty damn well in restricting the weapons from criminals. Harris and Klebold didn't have them.
But then compare that to the prohibition on alcohol: a law that was almost flagrantly disregarded by most people.
Now you have to show will [fill in the name of CD copyright protection law here] will either be like the former or the latter. Laws need to be effective and constructive. People won't follow the law just because it was done with good intentions.
(Of course you could say the firearm law isn't even that useful. But then you get into a question of what is effective law and what isn't. Given enough modivation a person can break any prohbition.)
I want to see the questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Triv
World wide war on media ownership (Score:3, Interesting)
This kind of copy-protection schemes are starting to emerge in Europe as well; just yesterday I saw a CD by Ian Van Dahl clearly marked as non-playable on PCs and Macs. I didn't buy the particular CD to test the validity of these claims, but that's down to personal choice rather than a market trend. I do not know whether the sales of the record have been impaired in any way.
Funny, though; the fact that it's unplayable in PCs and Macs is not explained in any way. It is left almost as an anomaly with the CD, with no symbol of value that would express increased protection, value or proof of originality. All it has is a little black box stating the obvious problem.
I imagine something like a "original audio recording - for stereo equipment only" holographic label or something a bit more upbeat could have given a better message to the consumers. On the other hand maybe we should be glad they didn't think of this?
Jouni
Copy Protected CD - Just Bought One - It sucked (Score:4, Interesting)
Just bout the new Donnas [thedonnas.com] CD (Spend The Night) from Amazon.com. Pre-ordered it, even! And when it arrived, I found it would not even fire up in my Dell 8100 with a CD-RW drive! I wasted the money! What really sucks is that there was NO WAY for me to tell it was copy-protected BEFORE I ordered it. Otherwise, I simply wouldn't have bought it. The CD played ok on someone else's computer with no CD-RW, but on MY laptop, it simply wouldn't even run. Couldn't get it to play at all.
I'm returning it now for a refund, but I'm out the shipping charge. So, screw Atlantic records for perpetrating this crap on me as a consumer. I'm really tempted to rip the tracks using Audiograbber [com-us.net] (which reads the copy-protected CD's audio tracks just fine, thank you very much!) and distribute them just out of spite. I spit on such tactics - pah!
A disgruntled customer,
Joe G.
Bishop, CA
People don't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
99% won't change behavior (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah but 99% of consumers will be totally unaware whether the CD in their hot little hands at Best Buy is "crippled" or not. Nor will they care enough to put it back if you pointed out the warning label. It's one thing to ask a question and to have people agree in principle...and quite another to gague the extent to which such an agreement might influence actual behavior. My guess is that it won't influence it enough to deter the RIAA from making a good go of crippled CDs.
"Personal Backups" (Score:5, Insightful)
Since I'm already paying a hidden fee that the RIAA's been building in to the cost of cds since the PMRC hearings in the '80's, and I'm paying an extra tax built into the cost of the CDR discs thanks to RIAA lobbying, they're already gouging me twice for the privelege of doing something to which I'm legally entitled anyway.
With the advent of these "copy-proof" cds, I have yet to see any mention of either of those taxes going away. As far as I can tell, I'd still be paying both those premiums, even if every cd on the market was 100% copy-proof. God bless America.