how-to block ads
|
thender
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| reply to BF69
Re: DRM makes paying for something worthless.
said by BF69  :said by major marco :said by thender :Sometimes I think the whole plan is to make a service so horrible that no one wants to use it, so the excuse "oh we tried to create a legal digital download service, but it just didn't work - back to CDs, DVDs, and suing people"  It's the only way I can understand why media companies would shoot themselves in the foot with each new idea. They're not shooting themselves in the foot. DRM enables the vast distribution monopoly as currently enjoyed by the likes of diaRIAA and MPAA, etc. The idea is to shaft the consumer and make him pay for each of his Fair Use Rights. Want to listen to an audio book on your mp3 player? Cha ching. Want to listen to the SAME book on your desktop? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD player? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD ROM in your computer? Cha ching. The same file on your car stereo? Cha ching. On your A/V equipment in the entertainment center at home. Cha ching. And on and on it goes. Just to play Devil's Advocate. Say someone back in the 60's bought a Rolling Stones album. In the 70's when the 8 track of that same album came out he should have gotten that for free, then when the early 80's when cassette came out he should have gotten that for free too. Then when the CD came out in the late 80's that of course should be free too. I mean it's all the same music and they've already paid for it once. Please explain how this is different? Same thing goes for VHS/DVD/HD-DVD. a) The medium itself costs money.
b) Records vs tape vs CDs, they all took steps forward in certain areas of quality, you paid for that too.
If I bought a tape I wouldn't expect a free CD, but I would expect that I can play it in any tape player I want, whenever I want, and that I can back it up if I choose to. That was my arguement.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by thender :If I bought a tape I wouldn't expect a free CD, but I would expect that I can play it in any tape player I want, whenever I want, and that I can back it up if I choose to. That was my arguement. Fair enough and not to sound like a RIAA shill as someone else accuses me of, when Itunes only sells songs that can only be played on Ipods unless you do a bunch of other onerous crap first, well that's not the RIAA's fault that's totally on Apple. I can buy a song from Napster or Yahoo Music and it will in fact work on MANY MANY various MP3 players. Not Ipods, but that's Apples fault again.
The problem is the record companies wants DRM because of all the idiots that download the stuff illegally on the net. And I can see the point where people don't want DRM on thier stuff. I don't want it. If illegal downloading was never a problem I'm sure DRM wouldn't even exist.
So the record companies aren't going to stop DRM until people stop illegally downloading songs and pay for music and people aren't going to pay for music until the record companies abandon DRM. Both sides have thier heads up their butts and both deserve to burn in hell for making life hard for the rest of us who are honest hard working people.
The record companies also need a different price model since a song from the 70's shouldn't cost the same as a new release. A new song probally could be priced slighly higher and older songs be priced lower. There are probally hundreds of thousands of songs that hardly ever get bought because people deem 99¢ too much for a 30 year old song, but people would be more than willing to pay say 29¢-49¢ for it. 10,000 X 29¢ is more than 1000 X 99¢, but what do I know? | |
thender
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| Judging music price by age is bullcrap. 50 Cent's latest shit vs Jeff Beck's Diamond Dust/Led Zeppelin's Achilles Last Stand/Pink Floyd's Dogs, and 50 cent would be worth more?
How about selling FLAC files that are lossless, without DRM, that can be converted to a format your player can play? This way, instead of downgrading from CD quality to compressed to CD quality, we can be back where we started 20 years ago - with CD quality and fair use rights relatively intact. And we're not even at that.
DRM doesn't stop stuff from going online. Why would I want to download someone's 128k WMA shit(assuming the DRM were cracked) when I can download an --alt-preset standard MP3 that'll sound better and work on more devices, or a FLAC/APE lossless copy?
It's not even like they're "protecting" something worth downloading.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
|
