Piracy, DRM, and Mini D

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Originally posted by Mini D
You like this scenario because it affirms your belief. You dismiss the rest that don't. I understand. This is the act of an apologist, not someone seriously thinking things through.

This person was forced into thievery by evil DRM. He had no other options. This is the ONLY result of DRM.You cannot prevent piracy of anything that has already been released. I think DRM will go a great ways in preventing it for things that will be released with DRM encoding in place.

I liken it to the satellite TV industry and "black boxes". The encoding and frequent changes of keying went a great ways to reduce the praticality of buying a black box. Eventually, most digital media will be the same way. It's probably still capable of being "intercepted", but it's too damn hard for most to give it a shot.

As long as the music can be heard, it can be recopied through an analog source with minimal degradation of sound and recoded back to mp3.

So much for your effectiveness of DRM.

If someone wants it, it will be shared. Without exceptions.

That leaves only the normal, paying customer biting the bullet.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by moot
P2P may be the future, but not in its present illicit flavor.

Fortunately for us the people didn't give up on the radio, tv and casettes in the past based on what the industry told them. They achieved a compromise that couldn't have been achieved by other means. Without them the casettes could be still largely illegal.

[Catalyst]

Utopian worlds don't exist Mini...

one way or another things will get done without intervention from corp. or big brother...

DRM is just another way of controlling, that is just not gonna happen the way they or you yourself wish it to be, wishful thinking some might say...

have a look at the Prohibition law...control led to failure...Drug control leads to failure, the will to control everything will lead to failure...

psycho's like to control...

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Catalyst
Utopian worlds don't exist Mini...

one way or another things will get done without intervention from corp. or big brother...

Read what you just typed here. I mean, really read it.

Who's looking for a utopian world again? Who's looking for a world free of coperations or big brother? Who's looking for a world where everything gets done by the collective without intervention?

Sheesh.

I'm simply saying there is cause and effect without championing one side or the other. The collective is just as likely to exploit as the corperation. There is no utopia.

DRM is just another way of controlling, that is just not gonna happen the way they or you yourself wish it to be, wishful thinking some might say...

Once again, read through what you just typed very carefully.

I have not disputed that it is an attempt to control a product. I have not argued that it is fulproof. I have not said it will not change.

have a look at the Prohibition law...control led to failure...Drug control leads to failure, the will to control everything will lead to failure...

psycho's like to control...

LOL! You're equating DRM to prohibition? LOL! Hard to argue with that kind of lunacy.

[midnight Target]

This is pretty funny.

There seems to be a lot of people who think that if a man drops his wallet in the street they have the god given right to all of the money.

[Nashwan]

Piracy is always going to be cheaper than buying music. If RIAA had any sense, they'd ensure buying music was easier and gave a superior product.

Instead, RIAA has insisted that legal music is harder to get, and of lower quality (because of the restrictions of DRM).

I think the whole focus of RIAA and the MPAA is stopping piracy, rather than increasing sales. They aren't the same thing at all.

You'd have thought they'd have learnt something from the battle over video recorders. In the early 80s, the Hollywood studios tried to get video recorders banned because they would kill the film industry. They failed, and within a few years a large part of Hollywood's profit was coming from video sales.

RIAA and the MPAA need to realise that they have to compete with pirates, rather than thinking they can legislate them out of existence.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Originally posted by midnight Target
This is pretty funny.

There seems to be a lot of people who think that if a man drops his wallet in the street they have the god given right to all of the money.

Not exactly. But many people think that if a man drops a wallet on the street and they can make a perfect photocopy of his money, they'll do it.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Not exactly. But many people think that if a man drops a wallet on the street and they can make a perfect photocopy of his money, they'll do it.

Except the use of counterfeit money is a felony. Also the punishment is much more severe than with any kind of piracy. The reasons are quite clear: Widespread usage of counterfeit money will destroy the value of currency.

The latter is just to say that your example can't be compared to piracy (in the case some genius makes the comparison) because the effects are much worse. The damages by counterfeit money are also proven facts, not just some figures made up by the lawyers of MPAA/RIAA.

The analogy by Target is the same old one based on existing material. The ownership of an item is permanently transfered to the new owner. The analogy would be fine if an artist or publisher dropped a case full of unique notes on the street and someone would pick it up.

[midnight Target]

OK then.

Let's say I dropped a CD on the street that was full of rare valuable one of a kind recordings. The mere act of copying the CD will reduce or eliminate its value. So pro-piracy people are saying it is OK to copy this found CD as long as you give it back to the owner.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Originally posted by Fishu
Except the use of counterfeit money is a felony. Also the punishment is much more severe than with any kind of piracy. The reasons are quite clear: Widespread usage of counterfeit money will destroy the value of currency.

The latter is just to say that your example can't be compared to piracy (in the case some genius makes the comparison) because the effects are much worse. The damages by counterfeit money are also proven facts, not just some figures made up by the lawyers of MPAA/RIAA.

The analogy by Target is the same old one based on existing material. The ownership of an item is permanently transfered to the new owner. The analogy would be fine if an artist or publisher dropped a case full of unique notes on the street and someone would pick it up.

Your logic would work if the record sales would have droped through piracy. They do not.

At record level it works kind of like this: The person who picks up the wallet sees a hundred dollar bill for the first time. He likes it so much that he wants to get more of them. But this time he doesn't want to settle for a cheap copy, he wants the full original so he goes and 'buys' one from the bank.

But waitwait!! Once he gets the spanking new ceno he finds out the Bank RIAA'd himm off - he can't use his new note anywhere else except in a few selected shops. And even then he can get only notes as change, he loses all the coins in the process. But it gets only worse.. Next the Bank tells the man he doesn't own the money he holds, it's the property of the Government. The man only owns a license to use that money in a strictly limited way.

Allright, fair enough. The man rips the bill in two in anger and leaves. Later he  starts to repent his actions and goes back to the Bank. He want's to replace the damaged note in order to be able to use the money again. The Bank laughs at his stupidity. He is forced to get a new note for a full price instead - even though he already purchased the right to use one.

[Hap]

Are the rank and file still holding to "the recording guys made me steal" or has it moved on?

All the Best,

hap

p.s.  for any and all who floated that canard, "nature/enviroment/you/him/society" made me do it.  You do have a large body of company.  Strange bedfellows, eh?

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by midnight Target
OK then.

Let's say I dropped a CD on the street that was full of rare valuable one of a kind recordings. The mere act of copying the CD will reduce or eliminate its value. So pro-piracy people are saying it is OK to copy this found CD as long as you give it back to the owner.

If you're going to use that sort of analogy at least get it right. It is more akin to you sitting on the street corner handing out copies of your cd freely.

Nice try no cigar mt

[moot]

Artist makes song, copyrights it.
Joe gets copy of song for free, deminishes artists' due revenue.

This is supposed to be fair?

[Sundowner]

Originally posted by moot
Artist makes song, copyrights it.
Joe gets copy of song for free, deminishes artists' due revenue.

This is supposed to be fair?

In the traditional model it wouldn't be fair.

We are witnessing the beginning of the demise of this outdated model.

With the advent of digital media distribution the song becomes more of a vehicle of exposure for the artist. By getting the material in front of the customer  other venues of revenue are bolstered...live performances, TV opportunities, merchandise sales etc.

Think of the TV commercial..you will see few if any commercials removed from YouTube in the current frenzy of vids being removed due to copyright holder objections.

Why?

Because, the companies WANT you to view the promotion of their product as many times as possible.

It would be silly to attempt to SELL the advertisement to you, so it's offered FREE.

It will become the same with the music track..a free commercial for the other wares the artist offers for sale.

When the winds of change arrive it's best to adjust your sails to account for the new direction instead of trying to change the wind.

Regards,
Sun

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Originally posted by moot
Artist makes song, copyrights it.
Joe gets copy of song for free, deminishes artists' due revenue.

This is supposed to be fair?

It's not fair but the consumers are not being treated fair either.

Consumer wants digital distribution and search functions: Providers say no.
Consumer wants lower prices: Providers say no and raise prices. Then point declining sales growth figures being caused by piracy despite their own price raises caused them. Oh, and the fact that 50% less new titles were launched during the period. Duh..
Consumer complains about having to pay full album price for 1-2 songs: Providers say tough luck. Buy them in separate singles and pay full album price for the inconvenience.
Consumer wants to use the music he bought in all of his players: Provider says no and if you try we sue you.
Consumer wants to make a backup of his overpriced product: Provider lobbies restrictive laws to take away the right to back up media.

Cause and effect - relation folks.

Consumer wants digital distribution: Only way to get it hassle free is p2p
Consumer wants lower prices: Aint gonna happen, despite the fact that trials on lowered prices boosted sales over 100%.
Consumer complains on fill songs on albums: With failure of digital distribution, again p2p is the only way to go.
Consumer wants to use music in his players: The porked DRM digital media doesn't work in 90% of the existing playerbase. Consumer has the choice to buy a new player or download them DRM free. He chooses DRM free, he's not a fool.
Consumer wants to make a backup: Read above, no DRM no hassle.