ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR RECORDED MUSIC

[yellowgq]

So my teenage niece from overseas is spending a few weeks in America with us,

she spots my Record/CD collection and wonders aloud:

 

'Why would anyone buy music?'

 

She then goes online and pulls up several foreign websites that are popular in her country

and tells me she can download any song that was ever massed released.

 

I accept her challenge and pulled out Cd's of Billy Idol, Grease Soundtrack, The O'Jays, and Travis Tritt,

and named the most obscure track for her to find, and Lo and behold,

in about 10 minutes she obtained everysong for me in high quality.

 

Man, I tell you, It's OVER

[MaxKincaide]

 

So my teenage niece from overseas is spending a few weeks in America with us, she spots my Record/CD collection and wonders aloud: 'Why would anyone buy music?' She then goes online and pulls up several foreign websites that are popular in her country and tells me she can download any song that was ever massed released. I accept her challenge and pulled out Cd's of Billy Idol, Grease Soundtrack, The O'Jays, and Travis Tritt, and named the most obscure track for her to find, and Lo and behold, in about 10 minutes she obtained everysong for me in high quality. Man, I tell you, It's OVER

 

 

It's not over...it's an ongoing battle, the same as any other type of crime is an ongoing battle. I doubt anyone will ever see the end, but we can do as much as we can to stop things like this.

 

If I were you, I would search back through the history on your web browser and copy those domain names into a document, and report them to the FCC.

 

There may not be an end to the war, but we can still fight it.

[BlueStrat]

So my teenage niece from overseas is spending a few weeks in America with us, she spots my Record/CD collection and wonders aloud: 'Why would anyone buy music?' She then goes online and pulls up several foreign websites that are popular in her country and tells me she can download any song that was ever massed released. I accept her challenge and pulled out Cd's of Billy Idol, Grease Soundtrack, The O'Jays, and Travis Tritt, and named the most obscure track for her to find, and Lo and behold, in about 10 minutes she obtained everysong for me in high quality. Man, I tell you, It's OVER

 

 

Well, chalk it up to the sense of entitlement that the young adult generaton has had drilled into them by us. A good many of them have never had to pay for their own cars, insurance, gas, buy food, and now we're showing them that if yo get in trouble, the government will bail you out, whether it's your job, your bank, your house or your health. It's no wonder they don't think paying for music is necessary. Everything in life has just been magically crapped out of the ass end of that big Provider In The Sky, without any regard to how much it costs to produce anything or who had to pay for it. You can't blame the kids-they are only products of the education and values we've instilled in them.

 

[yellowgq]

 

If I were you, I would search back through the history on your web browser and copy those domain names into a document, and report them to the FCC. There may not be an end to the war, but we can still fight it.

 

 

 

 

They way she tells it, NOBODY in her country SEES it as a crime,

I've been overseas and I can tell you attitudes are much different than Americans.

 

And I'm not sure the FCC has any teeth in Europe or Asia.

[MaxKincaide]

 

They way she tells it, NOBODY in her country SEES it as a crime, I've been overseas and I can tell you attitudes are much different than Americans. And I'm not sure the FCC has any teeth in Europe or Asia.

 

 

I may be mistaken, but I believe there are international laws regarding free music downloads over the internet.

 

And I see what you're saying, that they believe that it's ok to just download music and not pay a dime...and you're right, that is the problem behind it all. And that's all the more reason to report any and all sites that you know of that support ilegal downloading. What would it hurt to report it to the FCC? I'm sure they would know who to report it to if they aren't the ones who handle that kind of thing.

 

But don't be discouraged. I can assure you, no matter what your neice says, people at least know that piracy is ilegal. Whether they individually believe whether it's right or wrong, it's the law, so their opinion carries no value.

 

If I were you, I would tell your neice that there are laws against music piracy that carry huge, huge fines, regardless of whether or not she thinks it's ok. Hell, one of the main reasons marijuana is ilegal in the US is because the government hasn't found a way to effectively tax it yet. I still don't agree with smoking weed, but I don't see it as being any different than drinking alcohol. But, do you honestly think that any judge is going to take that argument seriously?

[Kramerguy]

plenty of international laws

 

None of them enforced.

 

 

Everyone too busy with the war on drugs, war on free speech, whatever. Seems like we can't wait to start a new war on something.. so outside of the USA, where corporate lobbyists are the only reason pirating music carries a heavy penalty, nobody gives a {censored}; which leads back to the OP's relative from overseas.

[MaxKincaide]

 

plenty of international laws None of them enforced. Everyone too busy with the war on drugs, war on free speech, whatever. Seems like we can't wait to start a new war on something.. so outside of the USA, where corporate lobbyists are the only reason pirating music carries a heavy penalty, nobody gives a {censored}; which leads back to the OP's relative from overseas.

 

 

Well, in that light, I would suggest that we start creating music that is so terrible that noone would want to download it for free and mass market it.

 

Or just replace all free music files with N'Sync music.

[Synonym Music]

Hate to say it, but sometimes you have to take back control if people are flippant about giving it back. Something like a universal HDCP for audio would be nice. No proprietary bull{censored}, though; no format wars or root kits or other forms of hogwash. Just content protection that can interface with any device for legitimate reasons. Wanna make a mix CD? Okay. But you can't copy anything from that CD afterwards (no ripping, recording etc). You can listen all you want; you can even give it away, but no one else can take it and start mass duplication. Neither can you; there would be a monthly limit on how many times you could burn a single song.

 

iTunes sort of has this going, yet it's still much too restricted and the formats are not the most widely accepted. Also, if a song has digital rights protection, you can't play it outside of iTunes. That's monopolistic and not universal. Sure you could burn a CD and get the songs "unlocked," but then that's going straight back to the Wild Wild West with no content protection.

 

There needs to be some major research on this issue if we claim to be a culture that values art. Spamming a bunch of free {censored} is the Highway to Hell.

 

EDIT: Let me also add that game developers don't take kindly to piracy, either. The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena and Grand Theft Auto IV (both for the PC in this case) are "uncrackable" according to media posts on the hefty DRM. I still think it's to the consumer's detriment in this case because of all the refunds handed out afterwards. Functionality is where most DRM fails.

[MaxKincaide]

 

Hate to say it, but sometimes you have to take back control if people are flippant about giving it back. Something like a universal HDCP for audio would be nice. No proprietary bull{censored}, though; no format wars or root kits or other forms of hogwash. Just content protection that can interface with any device for legitimate reasons. Wanna make a mix CD? Okay. But you can't copy anything from that CD afterwards (no ripping, recording etc). You can listen all you want; you can even give it away, but no one else can take it and start mass duplication. Neither can you; there would be a monthly limit on how many times you could burn a single song. iTunes sort of has this going, yet it's still much too restricted and the formats are not the most widely accepted. Also, if a song has digital rights protection, you can't play it outside of iTunes. That's monopolistic and not universal. Sure you could burn a CD and get the songs "unlocked," but then that's going straight back to the Wild Wild West with no content protection. There needs to be some major research on this issue if we claim to be a culture that values art. Spamming a bunch of free {censored} is the Highway to Hell. EDIT: Let me also add that game developers don't take kindly to piracy, either. The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena and Grand Theft Auto IV (both for the PC in this case) are "uncrackable" according to media posts on the hefty DRM. I still think it's to the consumer's detriment in this case because of all the refunds handed out afterwards. Functionality is where most DRM fails.

 

 

Awesome idea for a seperate HDCP for audio! I honestly think that would work, too, even if it took several years to develop and create. I think that would be a great solution for everyone, since it would, I think, provide a way for people to have clearer audio too, since it wouldn't have to compete text for space.

 

It's like the argument I hear alot in favor of pirating music...alot of people around here try to argue that burning mixed CD's is no different than recording a song off the radio onto a cassette and making a mixed tape that way. But, the thing about that is that the audio quality of the song on the tape is going to be fairly poor, considering that it's being transmitted over airwaves and then dubbed onto a tape into lower grade audio. So while you may have the actual song without having to pay for anything other than a blank tape, it's still not going to sound as good as the actual tape that you would go out and buy.

[Kramerguy]

yeah... but mp3 audio compared to CD is no different than tape to radio or whatever-

 

Not to intentionally disagree - Just that it seems that lower quality doesn't seem to matter - We didn't care about tape quality 25 years ago, and nobody cares about poor digital quality today. We also FREELY did these same things with tapes years ago, handed them to our friends, etc.. and didn't care.

 

Lets face the truth, we taught todays generation by lessons of demonstration, and while it IS a serious problem, maybe we need to look a little more into the mirror and think about how we handled it and what would we have done if they tried to stop us from using blank cassettes...

[Nijyo]

DRM won't work, because it doesn't work. There's nothing digital that can't be reproduced in some fashion or other with a little work by a sufficiently smart and motivated group.

 

HDCP works fine to prevent *casual* copying by those who don't know how to go to The Pirate Bay and click on a torrent, but once someone is shown that getting a movie is as easy as checking their email, it's all over.

 

The solution needs to be behavioral and ideological, not technological.

 

Edit: I should add that, in the US at least, the solution will be to make getting music legally *easier* and *more consistent* than pirating it. iTunes has gone a long way towards beginning this.

 

Oh, and the FCC has no jurisdiction in anywhere but the US, by its very nature, so it has no teeth at all in the rest of the world. Pirating of software and media is widespread in many areas of the world, mostly because there's no political upside to keeping the bread and circuses from the masses.

[Matximus]

Sweet!!! What are some of those Web sites? That sounds like great stuff. Good for her, being Tech Savvy like that!

 

But really. This is a tired issue. I've stopped buying records because 95% of records blow. Most people feel the same way. They simply cost too much and have too few good songs. A la cart is the way to go, unless it's the rare super-fresh or big-tent album.

[Kramerguy]

 

Sweet!!! What are some of those Web sites? That sounds like great stuff. Good for her, being Tech Savvy like that! But really. This is a tired issue. I've stopped buying records because 95% of records blow. Most people feel the same way. They simply cost too much and have too few good songs. A la cart is the way to go, unless it's the rare super-fresh or big-tent album.

 

 

Thats a load.

 

What makes these albums (arguably) so great?:

 

Pink Floyd - Dark side of the Moon

Led Zeppelin - Led Zep IV

Huey Lewis - Four

Alice in Chains - Dirt

Dreamboat Annie

Purple Rain

Abbey Road

Nevermind

Joshua Tree

etc..etc..

 

Is that they were a cut above the regular albums... 10, 20, 30, 40, and even 50 years ago, it was uncommon to have an album that was a masterpiece from start to finish. Today is no different. To expect such is convoluted. Lucky for you they let you download singles, but this is the most common excuse I hear people using to justify illegal downloading and it's total bullocks.

[chadd]

 

They way she tells it, NOBODY in her country SEES it as a crime, I've been overseas and I can tell you attitudes are much different than Americans. And I'm not sure the FCC has any teeth in Europe or Asia.

 

 

In some places it isn't even a crime. And no, the FCC has no power outside our borders. Inside our borders they do whatever the party donors tell them to do.

[danosongs]

Wow, that is wild. I think the RIAA is much more limited to overseas infringement and they concentrate on large scale problems like Prirate Bay.

[Synonym Music]

DRM won't work, because it doesn't work. There's nothing digital that can't be reproduced in some fashion or other with a little work by a sufficiently smart and motivated group. HDCP works fine to prevent *casual* copying by those who don't know how to go to The Pirate Bay and click on a torrent, but once someone is shown that getting a movie is as easy as checking their email, it's all over. The solution needs to be behavioral and ideological, not technological. Edit: I should add that, in the US at least, the solution will be to make getting music legally *easier* and *more consistent* than pirating it. iTunes has gone a long way towards beginning this. Oh, and the FCC has no jurisdiction in anywhere but the US, by its very nature, so it has no teeth at all in the rest of the world. Pirating of software and media is widespread in many areas of the world, mostly because there's no political upside to keeping the bread and circuses from the masses.

DRM will definitely work if it's considerably more trouble to remove than it is to actually buy the product. You think tech isn't the answer, but want a behavioral and ideological change from the whole population? Good luck my friend - because now you have to propose a solution that follows those guidelines. Getting music is more consistent and easier already. That's not the problem. It's worth; it's value; really I think it's equity and fairness. What, I can go down to a mechanic and get ripped off to kingdom come, but ohhhhhhh no, I have to pay ten or fifteen bucks for an album! It's highway robbery I tell ya!

 

Our sense of worth is ludicrously skewed. Labels have made that worse, but it's only contributed to their increasing vapidity. They're clawing at dead carcasses like all the other hyenas. They're spraying febreeze around the Black Eyed Peas CD so a portion of their consumers won't notice. They have no answers and very little good music because of it. Like most bloated corporations, they were content to sit on their rear ends and do {censored}all about piracy.

 

The solution is a very manicured form of DRM/HDCP/what have you. One that allows copying, but only up to certain extent. One that allows songs to be played on any hardware, but not always recorded (and I can tell you, pirates are not going to get up and start looking for RCA, 1/8" etc. cables just to record some songs). One that allows ownership, personal/private use, and small magnitude sharing without being intrusive. I feel this is in unison with what rights the consumer should get and what limitations come along with copyright protection.

[drewl]

So none of you guys have borrowed an album or tape from a friend and made your own copy?

The problem is the internet has made your friends album available to everyone who wants it.

Can't say it's not illegal or wrong, but it's made my job of learning songs for the band alot easier.

[Nijyo]

DRM will definitely work if it's considerably more trouble to remove than it is to actually buy the product.

 

Except it never will be, because it needs to be decrypted on the local machine, and that local machine must be capable of doing the decryption. Since, unlike TVs, there's no "standard computer", if you want your audience to be able to play your music, then you need to make the file format as widely compatible as possible. Since you don't control the platforms, you can't guarantee there will always be a protected path, and can't guarantee that the media file itself is only readable.

 

Once you remove the compatibility guarantee, you run into problems. Remember the Sony Music CDs that only worked in certain types of CD players? From the consumer point of view, this is a "broken product" and leads to them being wary of buying it.

 

Furthermore, it puts up a roadblock to even buying it. Example: DivX. Not the video format, the platform that was DVDs integrated with DRM (in addition to region locking) which only allowed a certain amount of plays as determined by how much you paid. While you could certainly "buy" unlimited plays, you had to buy a special player for them IN ADDITION to he DVD player you already probably had (and they weren't cheap, and only could be bought at Circuit City).

 

So, you ask, why can't we use 256-bit, 1024-bit, (etc etc) encryption in order to prevent people from decoding protected media files? The problem lay in the ability of computers to decode complex encryption at high enough quality stream rates in order to provide a quality listening/viewing experience. In order to even approach doing it that way, you'd need to do the decryption in specialized hardware (which on computers would be an add-in card, and on devices would make small-form-factor players impossible due to the battery requirements and the area needed for the additional chipset -- decryption is not a low-power activity). Just try getting someone to buy music after they're told they need to buy another add-in card just to play it.

 

You think tech isn't the answer, but want a behavioral and ideological change from the whole population? Good luck my friend - because now you have to propose a solution that follows those guidelines. Getting music is more consistent and easier already. That's not the problem. It's worth; it's value; really I think it's equity and fairness. What, I can go down to a mechanic and get ripped off to kingdom come, but ohhhhhhh no, I have to pay ten or fifteen bucks for an album! It's highway robbery I tell ya! Our sense of worth is ludicrously skewed.

 

Ah, but in essence the "worth" of music was reinforced by artificial scarcity (the "gatekeepers", as BlueStrat calls them). Technology destroyed that artificial barrier. Now, I may agree with you that people should pay for art that they enjoy, but this isn't car maintenance anymore. It's the equivalent of being able to press a few buttons and your car is fixed. If that were the case with cars, car mechanics would be looking for work in droves.

 

With regard to music, the toothpaste is out of the tube. There's probably nothing that can be done to make the industry return to the paradigm it was in before napster.

 

Additionally, you have, perhaps unwittingly, stumbled across the "flawed car analogy" fallacy when comparing physical objects to digital entities. They are not the same, but IP Law attempts to make them so (for better or for worse).

 

Attitudinal consumer change will not be easy (though, people do tend to want to pay for the stuff they get -- we're not that far removed culturally from "thou shalt not steal" -- problem is that downloading a movie or game or music doesn't *feel* like stealing; there's little chance of getting caught, and I haven't actually taken anything from anyone, unlike physical theft where someone is deprived of their ability to use that which I stole), but it's *do-able*. DRM is probably not a viable paradigm. It only takes one person to find the flaw in the DRM, or one group that takes the time to decrypt the file, and it can be effortlessly distributed to the entire world.

 

Labels have made that worse, but it's only contributed to their increasing vapidity. They're clawing at dead carcasses like all the other hyenas. They're spraying febreeze around the Black Eyed Peas CD so a portion of their consumers won't notice. They have no answers and very little good music because of it. Like most bloated corporations, they were content to sit on their rear ends and do {censored}all about piracy.

 

"Labels" can mean anything from Virgin Records to the tiny indie label in your hometown. They can't all be bad.

 

Somehow, you apparently missed all the RIAA lawsuits and, well, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. While i think a lot of it is misguided (they're going after the consumers, not distributors -- it's always a bad idea to prosecute, and thereby alienate, your own potential customers), the RIAA member companies can hardly be accused of "doing nothing". If anything they were really late to the digital distribution model (if they'd gotten out ahead of it, they probably could have turned it around -- assuming they didn't screw that up, too).

 

The solution is a very manicured form of DRM/HDCP/what have you. One that allows copying, but only up to certain extent.

 

Yeah, welcome to the beginning of this decade and MPEG-4 using Fairplay. There's a reason that iTunes (and all the other major online music purchase services) stopped using DRM recently: it confused users and made them *less* likely to purchase music online.

 

One that allows songs to be played on any hardware, but not always recorded (and I can tell you, pirates are not going to get up and start looking for RCA, 1/8" etc. cables just to record some songs).

 

Allow me to introduce you to the analog reconversion problem.

 

One that allows ownership, personal/private use, and small magnitude sharing without being intrusive. I feel this is in unison with what rights the consumer should get and what limitations come along with copyright protection .

 

While your heart is in the right place, I assure you, there's smarter folks than either you or I who spend (and have spent) a *lot* of time trying to figure this out. So far, everything that has been tried has more downsides (in terms of getting people to pay for music, videos, games, etc) than upsides. It's not as simple as "making things harder to copy", it *has* to be, "make people willingly want to buy it."

 

Edit: Btw, I just got an iPhone last week. Things like this app is what will make music sales easy enough for people to get it, instead of downloading it off the web (the impulse buy motivation is very powerful -- and the song isn't even a dollar, and can be done with a credit card -- it doesn't even feel like spending money). It's amazingly useful and really freakin' good at IDing recorded music that's just playing in the background (or right out of a speaker, of course) . If anything technological can help us get people to pay for their music, it'll be convergence devices (i.e. a TV that can tell you what song is playing right now during a movie/show and lets you download it to an attached device -- THAT is a technological solution that is not only possible, but already in use in a limited fashion).

[Synonym Music]

 

Yeah, welcome to the beginning of this decade and MPEG-4 using Fairplay . There's a reason that iTunes (and all the other major online music purchase services) stopped using DRM recently: it confused users and made them *less* likely to purchase music online. Allow me to introduce you to the analog reconversion problem . While your heart is in the right place, I assure you, there's smarter folks than either you or I who spend (and have spent) a *lot* of time trying to figure this out. So far, everything that has been tried has more downsides (in terms of getting people to pay for music, videos, games, etc) than upsides. It's not as simple as "making things harder to copy", it *has* to be, "make people willingly want to buy it." Edit : Btw, I just got an iPhone last week. Things like this app is what will make music sales easy enough for people to get it, instead of downloading it off the web (the impulse buy motivation is very powerful -- and the song isn't even a dollar, and can be done with a credit card -- it doesn't even feel like spending money). It's amazingly useful and really freakin' good at IDing recorded music that's just playing in the background (or right out of a speaker, of course) . If anything technological can help us get people to pay for their music, it'll be convergence devices (i.e. a TV that can tell you what song is playing right now during a movie/show and lets you download it to an attached device -- THAT is a technological solution that is not only possible, but already in use in a limited fashion).

 

Always with the "during a show" solution.

 

Tell ya what. I don't like music in shows. It's bad, contrived, samey bull{censored} a lot of the time - and that's exactly why it's there. There's no real purpose for it to play, just promo. I also assume you've been looking at DVR views, episode purchases (another illegal downloading conundrum), and website views, cause this generation sure isn't watching TV.

 

You want consumers to buy music with DRM? Make it transparent. Make it with reasonable restrictions. Not a single program has done that in the history of music.

 

Much easier said than done, sure, but in no way impossible.

[Nijyo]

 

You have some very weak examples. However, this is a real factor. I don't think it would be hard to do for computers as those "standards" change over the years. Perhaps you could assemble optical drives in various fashions that contained this protection.

 

 

Those are "weak" examples? You're kidding, right? They directly address the issue at hand.

 

You obviously have very little experience with implementing standards in the field of computer technology. Even if you can get a group of engineers to agree on a standard, there is no way to require that every hardware manufacturer adhere to that standard. Basically, the only way you can get an organization to agree to a standard is either through overwhelming market share or legislation. Good luck with enforcing something that doesn't improve user experience at a low cost (you'll note that even though, in every way, Blu-Ray is better than the DVD standard from a quality and a DRM standpoint, they still publish movies in both -- the PS3 is the best, most versitile home BR player for the price and it's sales numbers are stagnating).

 

 

I'm not even sure that we should rely on encryption in any form.

Encryption is reliable for a great many things, but can be incredibly resource intensive, even with dedicated hardware (businesses have dedicated servers that handle transactional encryption, and the data volume is hundreds of times lower than decrypting 44.1kHz audio streams, much less 1080p24 or 1080p60 video streams). To make a system that could run 1024bit encryption at that data rate would be prohibitively expensive for a consumer. And the success is more dependent on the method being flawless and 100% resistant to reverse engineering (which it never is), than the length of your encryption key.

 

 

Pfffffffffft haha no that's complete horse{censored}. Each person creates their own worth or evaluation of music. I don't know many people who labor on an album and are compelled to give it away for free... Not any of the ones who aren't brainwashed, at least.

The worth of anything in a market based economy is determined by what the market will bear (in this case, what the consumer is willing to spend to obtain a "song" or "songs"). We can contemplate the metaphysics of worth until we're blue in the face, but currently the default "worth" of a song seems to be right around $.99 USD, give or take ~$.25USD

 

 

Unfortunately the difference in price still backs up my point. Albums are not expensive unless they're marked up too high. The really good ones are worth far more than they actually cost.

No, they're only worth what people are willing to pay for them.

 

 

Most of the world just doesn't hold that kind of value in music anymore.

People value music just as much as they used to, but the amount of money they're willing to pay for it is right around ~$.99 USD, give or take ~$.25, assuming that they find the quality of said music to be up to a particular level. If not, and the method pirating is reasonably easy, certain people will pirate the song.

 

 

Then it's the lack of respect which, sometimes, you have to forcibly take back.

I don't think you'll have much luck *demanding* that people respect you. Tends to have the opposite effect.

 

 

Always with the "during a show" solution.

You're gonna have a hard time being taken seriously when you make up stuff about what other people have said in the past.

 

 

Tell ya what. I don't like music in shows. It's bad, contrived, samey bull{censored} a lot of the time - and that's exactly why it's there. There's no real purpose for it to play, just promo .

Er, yeah. That's what radio is also for. Promotion. Sure you get royalties for public performance on radio, but you do on TV as well.

 

Remember, singles are the enticing bit, to get people to buy the album. Concept is the same regardless of the medium. Hell, onscreen prompts are superior to most radio stations, in that you know what the hell the name of the song and the artist are (satellite radio, my fav, is excepted).

 

Your personal opinion of the music in TV is somewhat irrelevant.

 

 

I also assume you've been looking at DVR views, episode purchases (another illegal downloading conundrum), and website views, cause this generation sure isn't watching TV.

You're kidding, right? People watch TV all the time, even moreso since they can do time shifting. There's more programming available today than any time in history. This is not the behavior of a dying medium.

 

There are some folks that download TV episodes via BT and what not, but tons more now have TiVo, cable-satellite DVRs, or use services like Hulu. Another example of making it *easier* to do something legally than illegally. (quasi-illegally in the case of episode-trading)

 

But wait, they're skipping commercials? Horrible! Except that before time-shifting, people just walked away and got a snack, or went to pee, or something.

 

 

You want consumers to buy music with DRM? Make it transparent. Make it with reasonable restrictions. Not a single program has done that in the history of music.

Yes, because there is no one distributor of music, and no one distributor of music players. Making DRM transparent is like making a chainlink fence both intangible and effective.

 

You really do seem to believe that you're the only one who has come up with these ideas.

 

 

Much easier said than done, sure, but in no way impossible.

Principle of diminishing returns. You put years and millions into researching DRM, and some guy in Norway and his friends screw you in their spare time.

 

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

Well, at least HDCP works, right? Not really, no.

 

There is no real evidence that DRM is the optimal strategy, and it has become abundantly clear over the last 10 years that even the main online distributors of music (who stand to lose a lot from "piracy") have concluded that DRM as attached to the files themselves is an unworkable paradigm.

 

No DRM method is flawless, and again, it only takes *one* copy of a piece of media having its DRM circumvented to make it so the song can propogate an inexpensively accessabe (sometimes free) Internet and all that research is for naught.

[Matximus]

 

Thats a load. What makes these albums (arguably) so great?: Pink Floyd - Dark side of the Moon Led Zeppelin - Led Zep IV Huey Lewis - Four Alice in Chains - Dirt Dreamboat Annie Purple Rain Abbey Road Nevermind Joshua Tree etc..etc.. Is that they were a cut above the regular albums... 10, 20, 30, 40, and even 50 years ago, it was uncommon to have an album that was a masterpiece from start to finish. Today is no different. To expect such is convoluted. Lucky for you they let you download singles, but this is the most common excuse I hear people using to justify illegal downloading and it's total bullocks.

 

 

That's a good point. But I'm not talking about just illegal downloading. I download songs legally and burn others from friends. But I don't buy records anymore cause they are just too expensive and - more often than not- largely suck. Most of those are pretty damn good records. I own em. But really, $15-$18 for a CD is not worth it. $5 to $8? I'll open up my wallet for that.

[BlueStrat]

So none of you guys have borrowed an album or tape from a friend and made your own copy?

 

Omigod, you're right, because clearly, making a copy for personal use of something already paid for is exactly the same thing as putting somone else's records online for the whole world to take for free.

 

Do you not see how intellectually shallow and lazy your 'moral equivalence' argument is?

[BlueStrat]

The worth of anything in a market based economy is determined by what the market will bear (in this case, what the consumer is willing to spend to obtain a "song" or "songs"). We can contemplate the metaphysics of worth until we're blue in the face, but currently the default "worth" of a song seems to be right around $.99 USD, give or take ~$.25USD

Except in this case, the market is being artificially influenced by the illegal presence of free music. In any other business, it's called 'dumping', which is designed to upset and destabilize markets, allowing the dumpers to reap a profit later based on the chaos they create. In this case, however, the people doing the dumping aren't looking for profit, they're just dumping music on the market simply because they can. This nullifies the whole "market force" argument, because it isn't the market at work causing it, but rather interference with the market.

[Nijyo]

 

Except in this case, the market is being artificially influenced by the illegal presence of free music. In any other business, it's called 'dumping', which is designed to upset and destabilize markets, allowing the dumpers to reap a profit later based on the chaos they create. In this case, however, the people doing the dumping aren't looking for profit, they're just dumping music on the market simply because they can. This nullifies the whole "market force" argument, because it isn't the market at work causing it, but rather interference with the market.

 

 

I would argue that it doesn't nullify the market force argument, simply modifies it, and not as much as one might think.

 

By and large, the downloads that account for the majority of piracy are popular titles. You may be surprised at how difficult it is to find a torrent of Madonna's "Truth or Dare" on the web (actually, it's not hard to find listings for it, but finding one that works is another story -- 1 peer, no seeders = {censored}ty torrent). However, people still pay $.99 for songs that aren't current hits and which one would have to invest some non-trivial amount of time to obtain. The popular songs also sell truckloads of downloads for the same price.

 

With this in mind, I think the comparison is more apt to guys who sell bootleg DVDs (or used to sell VHS tapes) on the street in major urban areas. Even though they're cheaper (and in some places, really easy to find), the overwhelming majority of folks buy the movies (or rent them) retail. In the case of music, this translates to the opportunity/quality cost of getting it for free. The majority of people who use computers to obtain music these days buy it through legit means: iTunes, Rhapsody, Amazon Music, Yahoo Music, wtfZuneUses, because the process is now very streamlined and accessible, *plus* there's a quality implication (how do I know what is labeled as "Lady Gaga" is really that?), and if something goes weird, I can get support from the company. With iTunes when I download it I know its gonna pull it down and it'll work with my player, etc.

 

The majority of folks that are downloading for free now are not your typical, non-technical user (90%+ of the computer using public). They're the power users for whom the "time-to-find-verify-and-download vs pay-money-for-it" trade-off is tilted in the former's favor, vs the latter.

[slight-return]

One of the big problems with trying to institute DRM (and I think Nijyo may have covered this somewhat - sorry if it's a redundant post),especially with passive data (data like music and motion picture as opposed to Executable code), is that the entirety of the data need be decoded at playback - so the systems are vulnerable to post-decryption intercept (things like HDCP generally offer protection from pre-decypt intercepts).