Stop the RIAA

[Darth Mandarb]

Very well put Rick!

Those are, essentially, the same things I'm opposed to as well.

They spend all that time and money to develop easily cracked/hacked copy protection.  It's futile.

I object to unskippable FBI warnings and lame-ass anti-piracy PSAs on my DVDs.  I have over 300 (bought and paid for) and everyone of them forces me to see an FBI warning about copying and a good portion of the newer ones force me to watch some stupid PSA about movie piracy.  I bought the thing and shouldn't be forced to watch this.

I object to how the "legal" mp3 download sites (I think iTunes does this) restrict the number of times you can burn the content to a CD?  That's beyond rediculous.  If I buy the thing I will have a copy of it on as many machines, CDs, whatever that I want.  I pay for it, it's mine.  Simple. 

I object to paying [roughly] 1 USD per song on "legal" download sites.  This is rediculous.  So for a full album you still pay the same as a CD only now you're not getting the actual CD??  How does this make sense?


Is it illegal question ...
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that downloading mp3 is illegal.  I believe supplying the downloads is.

The RIAA's real concern is that artists will come to realize that they don't need a monster company to promote their work and that they just need a good agent/publishist.  In a world where manufacturing and distribution are virtually free of cost there isn't much left for a big record company to do.

In a digital world artists, the really good ones, will make as much or likely much more that they would have in the old world.   Not only that there will be greater variety and it will be easier form artists to get started.  The winners and losers will be determined by us, the people, instead of a few of pin heads in the seats of power.

That's the kind of world I'd like to live in, how about you?

Spot on!  I've been saying this for years!  Artists can now use the internet to be heard/known.  They don't need the big record labels anymore.  I think, more than anything, it's this fact that has the record labels browning their shorts. 

[Nikolas]

Thanks Rick, indeed great post!

I had no idea about those things you're mentioning (since I've never been to the States, in even if I was , I wouldn't go searching for a DAT in my holidays or something... ), so indeed your post was very educational.

We agree on all those things I think.

About being legal or illegal, don't really know, to be honest, It was a sincere question. I do think that the "illegal" problem lies at the duplication of the track. Supposidely, when you listen to a track, you have either bought it, either the person playing it has bought it, either it's on the radio or telly (or internet), where the royalties are being paid... In this kind of sense, someone listening to a track that he got from his friend over the internet seems illegal. Can't be too sure though... Have no idea... I would imagine that it's the same as taking a tape and copying a friends tape. Isn't this illegal? Or copying a CD... Again can't be too sure...

Certainly if I was selling my music, and found out that people (lots of them) were listening to my tracks without having paid a dime to me, I would be annoyed, wouldn't you? (Imagine the companies... :p)

To put things straight and there is no misunderstanding:

I don't really mind mp3 downloads. My initial post, went ahead to different areas (software piracy, where things are a little different...). I do think that with the internet the big companies should go f*ck themselves.

Generally this whole thing about movies and especially CDs and music is a very grey area.

I don't know where things are headed, but it seems that the more things go towards the piracy thing (not a bad thing per se), the more "protection" the big companies will have, which will make innocent consumers suffer (just another example for the software thing where in music you get the "dongles", bloody awful things that will allow you to work with a program you've bought! Still you're wasting 1 usb port, since it's usb stick! Bloodu awful business! I think I'll just go back to using cracked programs!)

My impression is that from now on, people with ordinary computers, and ordinary lifes, can make extra ordinary works of art! So no need for the middle man! With the internet these things can be shown and promoted! No need for the middle man!

Hopefully this is the era were the artists will be more active than ever, and the quality will be the same (or even maybe better... who knows). I don't need to buy any music actually, because I can get millions of free songs, from soundclick and myspace! Same with games! I can get 1000s of games as freeware (AGS etc...), don't really need to play oblivion or anything like that (just an example).

It takes some training to think like this though, because we are consumers and we do need to be free from advertising (which is where the bucks are spent of course), cause there is where the "need" for the new amazing game starts!

BTW, Darth, just a short question (honest question nothing else...):

Why have you bought so many DVDs, but not any CDs? Or you already have CDs, just stoped buying any more? Isn't it the same thing? If nothing else, DVDs, seem to have more annoying things than CDs... Just wondering...

[Darth Mandarb]

BTW, Darth, just a short question (honest question nothing else...):

Why have you bought so many DVDs, but not any CDs? Or you already have CDs, just stoped buying any more? Isn't it the same thing? If nothing else, DVDs, seem to have more annoying things than CDs... Just wondering...

A valid question.

I think DVDs are, as with CDs, rediculously over-priced.  But I can't load up Limewire and get a DVD from it.  Plus ... I'm perfectly content having my mp3 only on my computer and listen when/if I want.  I don't want to watch my movies on the computer.

[Nikolas]

Thanks Darth,

In the case of DVDs, if I may comment, that making movies is far more expensive than making an album. Don't know if it is ridiculously overpriced (although I'm usually renting not buying...)

[Gregjazz]

Yes, there are a lot of annoyances relating to DVDs, and CDs also. Any burned CDs I have refuse to play in my hardware CD player. That's my own music, refusing to play in the CD player. In a passive-aggressive attempt to partially thwart piracy, they have affected my attempts at playing legitimate CDs.

It's when copy protection affects its customers negatively where copy protection goes wrong. Like what Nikolas said, now you have things like USB dongles with computer software (by the way, Nikolas, did you hear the news that IK multimedia is going to take the dongle off of Miroslav Philharmonik?). Although I personally don't have a problem with them, I understand that they can cause problems on some people's computers.

Anyway, what I dislike the most is when people rip off small companies and individuals, thinking that they're some "large corperation." It's when people copy the CDs that were self-published by musicians. It's when people scan in fake books (books of sheet music) and distribute them on CDs (a bit of a specific example that I'm currently heated about--the author of the New Real Books is getting ripped of majorly by people who don't realize that he's just an individual trying to make a living).

Technically it's no more illegal than ripping off CDs or software made by large corperations, but when it's something ripped off from you and me: that's infuriating.

---

On the other hand, there are places like pandora.com, from which in essence you can listen to high-quality tracks from CDs (but only once). Also, Rhapsody features a promotional program in which you can download 25 free MP3s every month, legally (at least that's what they say). Rhapsody's deal is pretty handy, because then I can listen to a high-quality track from a CD to decide whether or not I want to purchase it. It's basically like having Borders' CD sampling available in your home.

[Vel]

I think that there is a considerable difference between buying cds of world-famous artists and buying those of local ones. As much as I like say, U2, I hardly think that they rely on my presumable copy of their album to live on. Moreover, they've never come to play here live.
On the other hand, I do buy Bulgarian cds, not that there are an awful lot I like these days, but still, I do.

[Nikolas]

On the copy protection idea, lots of companies were thinking about dongles, but found it a bad idea...

Actually all I had to do to shake the water was to show them a screnshot with Cubase SX3 in, cracked! No piracu protection works! Good think about IK Multimedia though...

Yes, indeed it's a different issue downloading an indie game, or a huge game, isn't it?

What Vel said mainly...

[RickJ]

Certainly if I was selling my music, and found out that people (lots of them) were listening to my tracks without having paid a dime to me, I would be annoyed, wouldn't you? (Imagine the companies... :p)

Hehe, yeah but I bet you would be more annoyed if nobody was listening to it and a whole lot poorer as well.

I disagree with the notion that maxium economic benefit (for the artist or publishing company) is achieved when there is 100% copyright compliance.  Although this is somewhat counter intuitive at first glance it  is logical and demonstratably true. 

There is no business, organization, machine, or technology that is 100% efficient.   It just doesn't exist.  Further, the cost of improving efficiency increases exponentionaly as you approach 100%.  So eventually a point is reached where the cost of making an incremental increase in effiency exceeds the benefit gained.

Does anybody know of or remember "Lotus 123"?   That was the first spreadsheet program and they owned the market.  Everything was going along swimmingly for them and others in the infant PC software industry.   Then copy protection became all the rage and required that the original floppy disk be inserted into the drive before starting the program.  Those who went in heavily for copy protection were cruely punished in the marketplace. 

Have you heard of Borland International?  As I understand it a young fellow named Philip Khan (not sure of the spelling) wrote a Pascal (Pascal is a programming language) compiler as a school project while at University.   It featured the first incarnation of an IDE, intergrated development environment, that allowed people to rapidly write, debug, and test code.   Whilest looking for employment he spent his spare time polishing up his school project.  At one point he started selling Turbo Pascal for $50 bucks.  It came with a couple of floppy disks and a nice professionally bound softcover manual.   At that point in time it was impossible to purchase a compiler for under $5000 and then you only got shitty little three ring binder for a manual.

Supposedly Philip was told that he couldn't sell his compiler for only $50 bucks because everyone would make illegal copies of it and so he would have to sell it for $5000 to make up for his losses.  He said that he still intended to sell it for $50.  When  asked if he was concerned that people would make illegal copies of it he supposedly replied that he was depending on it. 

He did and they did.  But a funny thing happened, people copied it illegally,  tried it out,  and liked it.  After a short period of time they got tired of standing in front of the zerox machine and would decide that the nicely bound softcover manual alone was worth 50 bucks and so they sent in $50 to get  their official version.  Since people pervieved that $50 was a fair asking price and since they could afford/justify it they did what comes natural to most people, they just bought the damn thing.  On the other hand when people percieve they are being cheated they will also do what comes natural; take steps to achieve a just result.

There were probably a good number of people who never got around to writing a check, but so what.  Philip didnn't have to supply the floppy disks or pay for the photo copies of his manual.  Sure these seem to be lost sales but are they really?   If he had a bullet proof copy protection scheme how many of these people would have made the purchase?  How many sales, he would have otherwise made,  would be lost due to copy protection?  Would people have found out about it as quickly if there were copy protection? Multiply $50 times the number of people who didn't pay and you get an amount that is dwarfed in comparison to the cost of traditional marketing and advertising.    The fact that it was easy to get a copy actually made the market for it.  Well anyway Turbo Pascal & Philip went on to become Borland International and the rest is history.

Ok, I've said enough and I'll let someone else have a say.  Cheers all.

[Nikolas]

4. Microsoft is what it is because of piracy.

I mean in the end piracy is not so bad... but there are people who actually are loosing money...

I agree with you! I agree whole heartidely! Just trying to be in someone elses shoes. No matter if you're Bulgarian singer, or Bono, still if someone told you that : "Hey! I ripped your CD, and you didn't get anything", it is annoying! That's what I simply said...

I know that there is no maximum econimic benefit, with 100% copyright compliance! Heck piracy serves very much as promotion and advertisment (the microsoft comment!)

[Darth Mandarb]

I would like to clarify that I pay for Netflix ... it's something like 20 USD / month for unlimited 3-at-a-time service.  I can usually get about 9 DVDs a month for that cost.

Now ... if an mp3 site were to say "20 USD / month for unlimited song download" I would gladly pay that.  I'm not opposed to spending money, I'm opposed to spending too much money on something I consider to be over-priced.

I understand that I'm not the owner (the one selling the items) and I don't get to determine the price.  However, being that I disagree with the "raping" they do to their consumers with the costs, and the wide availability of a free alternative I choose to go the mp3 route as do millions of other consumers.

The record labels are foolishly fighting a losing battle.

[Nikolas]

Could be deadly wrong, and ignorant but, isn't this something like 2,000,000 songs, unlimited acces for 6$ per month?

http://music.yahoo.com/ymu/default.asp?

Ok it's not that... You're not downloading music you can save... NEver mind then... It's all BS!

[voh]

In the Netherlands, downloading is fully legal, yet uploading isn't. So technically, with my 5606 MP3's stashed neatly away ordered on genre, band and album, I'm doing nothing wrong. Especially worth noting is that over 3000 of these MP3's are files I ripped from my own CD's, because MP3's are just that much more convenient than CD's are (they break, they're cumbersome, and try making a playlist with a couple of bands - I really don't need a CD switcher for that purpose, now do I?).

I bought around 35 albums this year. All of them directly from the band/artists. I haven't bought a CD from a regular store, not a single regular CD, in over 5 years. I refuse to pay 20 euro (yes, 20 euro, that's 26 USD) for a CD. Especially when I know that same CD costs 15 USD in the states, and importing it would be cheaper. This is a prime example of how incredibly fucked up the market is nowadays.

Knowing that a marginal amount of those 20 euro actually go to the people who created the work - wrote the music, played the instruments - I can't really find any realistic reason to pay that much for it.

I paid 50 euro for a CD, directly to the artist. It was a special edition CD, with a T-shirt, poster and a huge sticker along with the package. 50 euro was that, and shipping was included.

Of that money, about 40 euro went to the guys who created the music, had the CD pressed, had the T-shirts printed with their own design, made the stickers/poster.

That makes me feel good about myself, it really does. I'm literally supporting them in what they're doing, rather than support an industry that's basically killing off creativity and treating their clients horribly.

A local band started doing this, you know. They offered their songs for free on their website. Now, you'd say they wouldn't make money off of that, but they included a link where you could, if you liked the CD, purchase it for 12 euro. 15 if you wanted a poster with it. 25 if you wanted the poster + t-shirt. They don't have a record deal, they're doing everything by themselves. Normally, without a record deal you won't get airtime due to shitty PR, or won't get to play on big festivals. They've played the biggest Dutch alternative/rock festivals many times, they've gotten an insane amount of airplay back when the CD's first couple of singles were released, and they've sold a LOT of CD's. Their gimmick of selling it online to those who wanted to eventually made it possible to get their indie CD (and truly indie, as there was no publisher but themselves) into the standard music stores.

That's an inspiring tale, and it gives me hope for the music industry. RIAA needs to get with the program.

Thank god they can't touch me, since I'm doing nothing wrong

additionally: concerning software and stuff, if I ever finish a game that I think would be good enough to ask money for, I'd make it a price that people would go "well, that's entirely reasonable!" at, simply because I know that's what I'd want to see. 5 USD for a game isn't much, but it won't stop people from getting it. If it's easily worth more than 5, 10 or 15 seems decent as well. The point is that, as with the Turbo Pascal example, you need to make it a "reasonable" price. Music albums have turned away from reasonable and are now unreasonably expensive (or so it seems).

[ManicMatt]

Hmm that's an idea, I could sell two versions of my album. The full works, fully coloured inlet, etc, for around a fiver maybe (Depends on costs), and just the album on a disc in a wallet, but at a cheaper price, say the cost of the postage and about 50p or something to buy me a loaf of bread haha. I'd rather not do the digital mp3 download thing.. sounds complicated.

I got annoyed with the anti-piracy measures for PC games too. My original copies of Hitman Blood Money, GTA: San Andreas, and Postal 2 tell me that my ORIGINAL disc is a copy, which I am told is because it senses I have a virtual drive. I've worked around it, use your imagination, but it's annoying to say the least.

Oh, and dreadful game "Pirates of the caribbean" on the PC (The original one) didn't work on my PC because I had NERO installed. Yes, that's right. Uninstalling it caused the game to work, only to find it was one of the worse games I have ever played.

[LimpingFish]

If you don't like the cost of CDs, you could always go without.

Just offering an alternative to "I don't like the inflated cost of CDs, so I'm just going to download the music for free."

I don't judge either way, but that seems to be the most popular route. When I see something I like, but think is too expensive, why should my first thought be "Nah, I'll just get it for free."?

Like I said I'm not here to judge. But people seem to disagree with the costs of a lot of products, judging by what floats over the internet. Movies, games, music, software...

P.S I am not the Grinch

[Darth Mandarb]

If you don't like the cost of CDs, you could always go without.

Yes I could.  But there is a very easy alternative which gives me the music at a much lower price.

If there were no mp3 available (or any alternative to CDs I mean) I might well go without.  However, were that the case, I might not realize just how badly they are ripping us off and might still be buying CDs.

Just offering an alternative to "I don't like the inflated cost of CDs, so I'm just going to download the music for free."

I would reply with, "I'm not going to buy CDs just to avoid people thinking my reason for not buying them is BS!".

I'm not downloading just because it's free.  I'm downloading because it's a much more reasonable price.  That IS my reason.  I'm not making it up   If there were a legal outlet for a price I find reasonable, I'd pay it.

[Adamski]

Could you please just admit outright that you're happy to steal music from artists because it's easier than getting out your wallet? Because it is outright theft, you know. I can't stand to see people trying to justify stealing music from musicians for the sole reason that it is EASIER TO DO SO THAN PAY FOR IT and pretend that what they are doing is not wrong.

[LimpingFish]

But you also prefer getting the music for free, like any normal person would.

How much would music have to cost for you to purchase it, and how would that cost have to break down? Does the argument you give just act as a means to an end, seeing as it would be very naive to think the music industry will ever "fairly" treat both its product and consumers to a degree that satisfies?

I'm not personally questioning you, Darth ( ), but just the realism of the argument you put forward.

I don't buy CDs out of some need to feel noble, not that you implied such, and sometimes I do actually go without when I feel a CD has been priced unfairly. But the price of a normal CD purchase for me rarely goes above 10-15 euro. I find that acceptable, which doesn't mean other people will, or have to, and that's fine.

I don't really care how much goes to the artist, the publisher, or the store, or that the physical CD itself only costs a couple of cents to produce, and maybe that makes me a sap.

I'm just saying the first thought into my head isn't "I can get it for free." I don't feel any better for not downloading, and is doesn't make me any better than somebody who does.

And now I've forgotten my initial point, so I'll just end here.

[Darth Mandarb]

Could you please just admit outright that you're happy to steal music from artists because it's easier than getting out your wallet?

I'll admit that I'm happy to download music for free as long as the cost of CDs is rediculously high. If I think the cost of something is justifiable, I get out my wallet.  CDs are overpriced, I have a way to get the music for [a lot] less money, so I do.  This isn't that complicated really.  I'm not "stealing" the music from the artist either ... I'm pretty sure they still have it.

Because it is outright theft, you know.

No, it's not.  If it were outright theft to download mp3 there'd be millions of us in jail.  And yet I am still walking the world free and downloading mp3 on a near daily basis with no intention of stopping.

I can't stand to see people trying to justify stealing music from musicians for the sole reason that it is EASIER TO DO SO THAN PAY FOR IT and pretend that what they are doing is not wrong.

Just because you think it's wrong doesn't make it so.  I think paying rediculous prices is wrong.  So I don't pay it.  There are millions of us downloading mp3 and that isn't going to stop no matter how much whining and complaining is done against it. 

If they want to sell more CDs they need to lower the costs.  If the do, they'll sell more and guess what?  Same amount of money in the profit margin (if not more).

We can argue about this until we're all blue in the face.  The truth of the matter is this:  Mp3 is free, easy, and not going away.  No matter what a few people in the "Biz" try to do to stop it, they can't.  They need to get on board, lower the costs, or suffer from slackin' sales.

Simple.

[Sam.]

itunes? whatever the zune store is called?

Cheap, and easy.

Surely problem solved?

[ManicMatt]

Darth, you gotta stop spelling "Ridiculous" wrong! You always spell it like that! You're going to make me think it's spelt with an 'e' soon! 

Uh..Darth... it's not legal to own mp3's of copyrighted music unless you own the original disc yourself. Now this would be UK law, but I'm sure it's the same in America. It's just not the sort of crime people get busted for unless they get caught spreading the stuff around in vast quantities.

I understand why you do it, but you have to understand that it's a crime, no matter how small a crime it is, it's still a crime. Just not one a policeman would want to bother filling in the paperwork for and using up police resources.