Pretending DRM Works New copy protection doesn't protect Reuters explores how many customers are complaining about the DRM on the new Foo Fighters album, which is incompatible with iPods. Of course, despite the DRM, P2PNet points out the album is still being freely copied, one of the songs off it holding the number one spot among illegally traded rock music files. Despite that, the album has topped the charts - selling 736,000 units since launch, (and 23,000 digital copies).
|
  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
4 edits |  Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
|  | | | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating I don't think they are justifying anything. I think they are just talking about the new technology that doesn't allow a person to legally transfer a purchased song onto their i-pod and how the technology that does not allow i-pod usage is not doing as it is intended (i.e. stop pirating) I think they are showing the irony. | |
| | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating Are you purposely overlooking this part of the BBR news item:
Of course, despite the DRM, P2PNet points out the album is still being freely copied, one of the songs off it holding the number one spot among illegally traded rock music files. Despite that, the album has topped the charts - selling 736,000 units since launch, (and 23,000 digital copies).
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
| | | | | | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating Thank you for pointing out my argument. The technology that is supposed to stop illegal copying is only stopping legal copying! | |
| | | |  gheezerCompooters R UsPremium
join:2002-12-20
Henrietta, NY
1 edit | Typical neocon response...kneejerk reaction without understanding what you're seeing.
BBR is QUOTING another web site news article...they cannot be held responsible for the NEWS they report...it's like blaming Saddam for Osama Bin Laden...
oh wait, the Republican's are doing that too...
This country's in deep doo doo man..Corporate interests rule, both political parties have sold out to the money god, and the freedoms we held so dear are disappearing at an alarming rate.
Go coddle another multi-billion dollar corporation and keep yer paws off DSLR.
I am an avowed Conservative libertarian, compare me to a liberal at your own risk.
--
Join the NAVY, see the world....It's mostly water! | |
| | | | | | | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating If you had managed to say that without the needless political trolling, I would have like your post. | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I didn't know that BBR had room for one political party. (thought it appears to be an ultra liberal site)
And don't take that wrong, becuase you and I come from the same polital threads... liberatarian. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating The following is an observation, not meant to offend. So please let's skip the trolling and flames.
I'm sure that if you were to take a survey of BBR users, you'd find a multitude of views.
As for me, myself, I'm real close to moderate. On some things I fall one way, on some the other. I tend to follow reasoning and basic logic (and sometimes a little emotion) to decide on a case-by-case basis... I'm not the kind to subscribe to one side of the spectrum. | |
|
| | | | | | 1.) And who the heck are you to tell someone to keep their hands off of DSLR, or any other public website or forum for that matter? I don't see any evidence of you being a sysop, etc... they're the only ones that can do that.
2.) Last time I checked, there were three forbidden subjects in polite conversation - if you bring them up, you're bound to cause trouble. The two I remember for sure are politics and religion - you sure opened that can of worms, didn't you? LOL I think the third is sex... I could be wrong, if I am, someone please enlighten me.
I think they said that about the first two for a good reason, though... | |
| | | | | |  fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating The third according to Linus on Halloween Night is "The Great Pumpkin". | |
|
| | | |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Way to Troll..
I'm so goddamn sick of how everything here deteriorates into partisan political bullshit.
When Napster first came out, did I download songs? Sure I did. My reasoning?
1: A lot of the songs I wanted (obscure 70's stuff) was not available in stores.
2: A lot of the stuff I wanted was on $20 CD's, and all I wanted was 1 song.
With the advent and proliferation of single song download services (not just iTunes, but a myriad of services), there is no legitimate reason not to go to a legal source to download the music you want.
Let's face it, if you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you want, you're noting but a 2 bit thief. I've downloaded a lot of songs for .99 that I thought were crap, and ended up deleting. It's .99! people, GET A GRIP.
I'm no friend of the RIAA, but since so many legal avenues to download music cheaply exist, it is getting harder and harder to fall on the side of folks who consistently bitch and moan about downloading music illegally on P2P services.
A short list of things that cost more than a buck...
A 16oz cup of coffee: $1.15
A 22oz Coca Cola $1.39
A gallon of gas $2.35
A lays "grab bag" of Doritos is a buck and a quarter around here for chirssake.
Let's face it, if you can afford 1: a broadband connection, 2: a computer that will facilitate the use of today's P2P networks, and 3: the CD burner to burn the CD's to export your illegally downloaded music to your CD player, you sure as HELL can afford to blow a dollar (a BUCK, .99C!!!!) on a song you might want...
Technology has caught up to this argument, and it has become totally moot. You can download almost any single song you might possibly want for a fair price, and the rights to it's use are, for the most part, pretty generous, as long as you're not trying to give it away for free.
I used to be a big advocate for the argument in favor of P2P, but not any more. If you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you might possibly want, I can't see where you were willing to pay anything for it in the first place... | |
| | | | | | 43193594Chauncey Gardiner
join:2005-08-03
CX 747-400 | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating Just because one doesn't feel a price is justified by a product doesn't mean they are a thief.
That doesn't make trading songs right. It also doesn't make trading them wrong. | |
| | | | | | | | Never mind the tax on the blank CDs the RIAA gets to compensate for music piracy.
They already got their dues from that. If the RIAA wants to take students and old ladies to court over a hand full of songs the market deems as only worth .99, then the tax on the blank CDs needs to go. | |
| | | | | | | | said by N3OGH:Way to Troll.. I'm so goddamn sick of how everything here deteriorates into partisan political bullshit. When Napster first came out, did I download songs? Sure I did. My reasoning? 1: A lot of the songs I wanted (obscure 70's stuff) was not available in stores. 2: A lot of the stuff I wanted was on $20 CD's, and all I wanted was 1 song. Let's face it, if you're not willing to pay .99 for a song you want, you're noting but a 2 bit thief. I've downloaded a lot of songs for .99 that I thought were crap, and ended up deleting. It's .99! people, GET A GRIP. A short list of things that cost more than a buck... A 16oz cup of coffee: $1.15 A 22oz Coca Cola $1.39 A gallon of gas $2.35 A lays "grab bag" of Doritos is a buck and a quarter around here for chirssake. Let's face it, if you can afford 1: a broadband connection, 2: a computer that will facilitate the use of today's P2P networks, and 3: the CD burner to burn the CD's to export your illegally downloaded music to your CD player, you sure as HELL can afford to blow a dollar (a BUCK, .99C!!!!) on a song you might want... Just because you see fit to waste a dollar on a song you don't like, don't label all of creation a thief just because everyone else doesn't comply with your personal morals.
1) Computers are relatively cheap nowadays. You don't need the latest and greatest. My mom's PII 266 will download and burn songs quite fine. Something that you pick up for $100, then purchase a cheap DVD burner (DVD burners can be had for ~$40 today) will service you for that exact purpose perfectly. You just need to make sure you have ample RAM.
2) A BUCK as you call it isnt cheap. Maybe, just maybe a person feels they have something better to do with a buck than to waste it on a lossy formatted song. For this "BUCK," I want a lossless copy of the song, as there are lossless codecs out there. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating If a buck's worth nothing to you, how about sending everyone regsitered on this site a buck just to prove it? | |
| | | | | | | |  rds24aTeach Your ChildrenPremium
join:2000-12-13
Newton Upper Falls, MA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating There's two points of view on the whole $0.99 deal:
1. The parts cost more than the whole. Common practice...ever price out buying a car piece-by-piece from NAPA? Way more than the whole. However, It currently costs more to buy the whole online than a CD in the store.
2. The lack of distribution. No CD's, no shipping, etc. etc. There should be a price break for that, I agree. However, there is a premium on convenience and I'm not willing to argue that it should be $0.50 or $0.75 or $5.00 an album. I think $0.99 a song is OK...not great, but OK.
As for the file size/quality issue. I'm sure it's more a matter of Dances with Focus Groups trying to find some one file size that provides sufficient quality while reaching out to those lowly dialup users who still have to wait 20 minutes to download one 3 Mb song file. Perhaps the solution there is to offer a hi-fi and a not-so-hi-fi version, but I guarantee you there will be a price difference (for not much reason other than they can).
--
All hail JoePa | |
| | | | | | | | |  tapeloopNot bad at all, really.Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
kudos:1 | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating said by rds24a:There's two points of view on the whole $0.99 deal: 1. The parts cost more than the whole. Common practice...ever price out buying a car piece-by-piece from NAPA? Way more than the whole. However, It currently costs more to buy the whole online than a CD in the store. 2. The lack of distribution. No CD's, no shipping, etc. etc. There should be a price break for that, I agree. However, there is a premium on convenience and I'm not willing to argue that it should be $0.50 or $0.75 or $5.00 an album. I think $0.99 a song is OK...not great, but OK. As for the file size/quality issue. I'm sure it's more a matter of Dances with Focus Groups trying to find some one file size that provides sufficient quality while reaching out to those lowly dialup users who still have to wait 20 minutes to download one 3 Mb song file. Perhaps the solution there is to offer a hi-fi and a not-so-hi-fi version, but I guarantee you there will be a price difference (for not much reason other than they can). Good points you make. You should check out the price breakdown that Wired had in a recent article. Reading that makes the cost of 75 cents a track sound more appropriate.
Full article is here:»www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.1···pic_set=
Still, I would personally rather buy whole (used) CD's rather than paying 99 cents a track. The sound quality and DRM are big issues to me, but if I find a one-hit-wonder that I simply don't want to buy the album of, I'll bite and cough up the buck. In that case I would be paying the unit cost of buying that one track as opposed to buying the whole album...but I'd still rather have the higher bitrate.
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. | |
|
| | | | |  skipon11Premium
join:2005-06-09
Pittsburgh, PA | Whew! Wacoyle. They sure have Braineashed you! | |
|
| | | | | Both of the passages you quoted are simply observations, and journalistic publishing. It takes a warped brain to see them as justifying piracy... but then again, considering how some people see the world, nothing would surprise me, would it? | |
|
| rds24aTeach Your ChildrenPremium
join:2000-12-13
Newton Upper Falls, MA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| I don't see that blurb as promoting stealing. The points are that:
1. Copy protection schemes merely add a few extra minutes to the initial rip and don't effectively stop illegal distribution.
2. DRM and copy protection schemes only punish those who buy the music legitimately and then find it difficult or impractical to use on common devices.
--
All hail JoePa | |
| | | | | | | rds24aTeach Your ChildrenPremium
join:2000-12-13
Newton Upper Falls, MA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating Still doesn't support your point. Just refrences that support my point #1. I do believe they also indicate that such file is being "illegally" traded if you read the rest of the blurb.
Yes, there may be some articles on here that indicate approval or disapproval of topics but this is not one of them.
--
All hail JoePa | |
|
|  mph300Two Thirds The Way There
join:2000-11-09
1 edit | said by Linklist:This is about the 50th attempt over the last year by BBR to justify music pirating. I'd like to see the reasons that they think stealing music is a justified activity. I fail to see how this news article that BBR posted casts a light on BBR as justifying piracy.....
Anyway, if it can be protected, it can be broken......shift keys, sharpies, rip-burn-rip and "Hey, can I borrow a few hundred of your cds ole buddy!" come to mind:D
Useless sh*t if you ask me
Mike
--
It's all about the G's | |
| | | | | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating The simple fact is, if it can be played or accessed publicly, beyond a small group of people, it cannot be secured, electronically or not. The keys, method to play it, etc. have to be somewhere, either in software or hardware, and they can be reverse engineered.
It really doesn't matter if you think piracy is right or not. I personally think that it is against the law, even if it's just civil liability. But just because something isn't a crime, doesn't mean someone won't do it... People jaywalk all the time, after all. (On both, I plead the 5th...  )
The reason good cryptosytems (PGP, GnuPG, etc... something beyond garden variety WinZip! LOL) can keep data secure (assuming they're used right) is because the key can be kept secure - it's often in the heads of only one or a few people. But to protect a public work that way - that key has to be available to the player somehow, not in someone's head. Hence my point. | |
|
| Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Point out where this blurb "justifies" piracy? It points out DRM attempts are failing. It also points out music sales are strong despite piracy.
You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them. | |
| | | mph300Two Thirds The Way There
join:2000-11-09 | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating said by Karl Bode:Point out where this blurb "justifies" piracy? It points out DRM attempts are failing. It also points out music sales are strong despite piracy. You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them. Bingo!
--
It's all about the G's | |
| | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
2 edits | said by Karl Bode:Point out where this blurb "justifies" piracy? It points out DRM attempts are failing. It also points out music sales are strong despite piracy. I don't see a denial that you think copyright infringement(theft) is ok or that you haven't posted article after article defending the practice. The editorial selection of news stories shows what you think.
said by Karl Bode:You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them. Off topic and false.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
| | | | | | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating Copyright infringement? Where?
If you purchased the album legally, please explain where copyright infringement happens? I bought it, they took away my right to play a legally purchased CD on my ipod, so I downloaded a LEGAL COPY from a P2P network.
There's no infringement there. nothing to see.
--
Grand Poobah | |
| | | | |  RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating said by G_Poobah:Copyright infringement? Where? If you purchased the album legally, please explain where copyright infringement happens? I bought it, they took away my right to play a legally purchased CD on my ipod, so I downloaded a LEGAL COPY from a P2P network. There's no infringement there. nothing to see. Did you not know? That is the infringement! You are suppose to buy a new copy each time you wish to use a new media just for that media.
That is the new wave that people like Retire_Rich and his Hollywood (just a guess, not a known fact) friends would like to get into place.
And I will leave out the politics since it looks like it is no longer just one party, but all parties and groups that are being bought out. (Isn't it amazing how certain people spout off about the "dems did this", or "the repubs did that", but ignore the fact that the other party usually had the same view previously but not the wherewithal to implement it?)
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | |
1 edit | said by "G_Poobah":
Copyright infringement? Where?
If you purchased the album legally, please explain where copyright infringement happens? I bought it, they took away my right to play a legally purchased CD on my ipod, so I downloaded a LEGAL COPY from a P2P network.
Well, there is some slightly grey area about whether or not downloading the "same group of bits" as you would obtain through ripping a lawfully-owned copy of a work into a digital data file is legal or not.
But in general, these new DRM schemes are more-or-less CONSUMER FRAUD upon the people. I think that needs to be clearly pointed out to people.
A copy-protected "CD" is in fact, not really a CD, since it doesn't meet the proper specifications, and usage of the trademarked logos is trademark infringement, and likely a violation of the licensing agreements that the large publishers have to sign to use the logo(s).
But of course he doesn't bring up that aspect, of how big business is 'raping' the consumer, oh no... | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating I think it's most important to remember that, originally, copyrights were designed to keep someone from PROFITING from the use of someone else's intellectual property. The protection was designed to stop illegal use by another business entity.
Now it's about trying to control the uses of the CONSUMER. Make no mistake, ultimately these initiatives are leading up to attempts by media giants to ram through per-use types of fees. Sound ridiculous? The Phone Company (I'm talking the AT&T monopoly here) tried for years to get measured-service rates (fortunately without success). The agenda of the media-interest groups are much larger than what is being talked about in the present. | |
|
| | | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | You're flailing your arms. I think DRM doesn't work. I think suing customers doesn't work. I think the industry can't and won't adapt. I believe in fair use rights. But we've never "justified piracy".
Still waiting for evidence this article "justifies" piracy. Can't provide any? | |
| | | | | | i think this artcicle here is simply explaining whats going on with the albubm, no where does it say "its ok to steal music, download as much as you can!". i seen something on CNN the other day talking about how music theft is growing, are they supporting it too?
"Of course, despite the DRM, P2PNet points out the album is still being freely copied, one of the songs off it holding the number one spot among illegally traded rock music files. Despite that, the album has topped the charts - selling 736,000 units since launch, (and 23,000 digital copies)."
where in there does it say its ok to steal music?
if you dont like BBR and their news that they give out, no one here is forcing you to read it. | |
| | | | mph300Two Thirds The Way There
join:2000-11-09 | said by Linklist:said by Karl Bode:You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them. Off topic and false. Off topic, I know, but I had to back Karl Bode  up on this one!
If what Karl Bode is saying is not true then why are most of your first posts a short one or two sentence post that is edited right after posting almost every time to make the post go along with the subject matter?
He is not the only one noticing.....
Mike
--
It's all about the G's | |
| | | | | | | Mom said I could ride in the front seat this time. Who cares if Retire_Rich is first??? (Besides you two?).
When I agree with him or not.. At least they are on-topic (Ahem) and they are sure a lot better thread starters than most. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Mom said I could ride in the front seat this t On topic? See above reply. | |
| | | | | | mph300Two Thirds The Way There
join:2000-11-09 | Re: Mom said I could ride in the front seat this time. said by MeanPeepsSuk:Who cares if Retire_Rich is first??? (Besides you two?). When I agree with him or not.. At least they are on-topic (Ahem) and they are sure a lot better thread starters than most. I agree with you.....I've just noticed that to some posters, being first is more important than making a comment that would be useful to the discussion. That's All!
Just like the poster that you sited in your post link!
Mike:)
--
It's all about the G's | |
|
| | | | | So what if someone drifts a little bit off topic? Just so it ain't way out in left field, it makes life more interesting.
In this particular case though, I do note it was a jab. | |
|
| | | | said by Karl Bode:You're in such a rush to grab the first spot on every news post every day on every subject, I'm pretty sure you don't actually read any of them. I agree. He obviously has nothing better to do. You guys should lobby congress to pass a bill to put all these retirees back to work instead of them mooching off social security and causing a raucous. | |
|
|  richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith | Wrong!
The BBR article summarizes stories from »australianit.news.com.au/article···,00.html and »p2pnet.net/story/5818. It makes no attempt to justify anything. Don't you think if it did, the RIAA would jump on them quickly? Of course, you are free to read it & draw what conclusions you will, but they are just repeating facts from other media outlets.
What has me concerned is that you buy a CD legally and since you have an iPod & don't want to scratch & ruin the CD, you want to rip it off the CD and put the music there - but you can't. Why not? Because of the stupid DRM on the CD. So you download the music [you've already paid for it] and put it on your iPod. In that case, I'm sorry, I don't see it as stealing.
Now, if you wanted to rip it off the CD & share it out on the internet [through whatever means], that's a different story. But if you want to take a piece of music, that you own [and have paid for] and to put on a piece of personal equipment (iPod), you shouldn't be prevented from doing so. Period. | |
| |  rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | You've a very active imagination. What you're saying is akin to saying, well, the WalMart down the boulevard just got its gun counter all set up, so WalMart condones murder. They're just REPORTING ON WHAT HAPPENED.
Hey, just another opinion here, but there's nothing in the article that says stealing is OK, and I don't even think it's implied. You're the one exaggerating that because BBR reports on new attempts at CD DRM, BBR condones music piracy.
What's really important to take away from the whole discussion is that the whole CDDA format was never designed/engineered with security or DRM in mind. Therefore, in order to remain compatible with the vast base of CD players, these new measures to try to discourage piracy are all just snake oil. In order to ensure the desired DRM, the delivery system must be engineered with that goal in mind. It's much akin to our present email system, where hosts trusted other hosts not to spam or phish or anything like that. So now we have bolt-ons like SPF, Y!DK, caller-ID for email, starttls (certificates), and so on. Because (E)SMTP was never designed with proving identity in mind, we have these various measures to combat spamming with varying levels of efficacy. Unless we can get a vast majority of sites/domain owners to switch to a new, more secure email protocol (even if it's a "mandatory" modification to the existing protocol), we're going to have the problem of email abuse. So too will we have a DRM content delivery problem until the CDDA format is deprecated (and replaced with another delivery system...it happened with vinyl->CD).
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules. Blog is here
Jeopardy! replies REALLY suck! | |
| | | | People who call music pirate stealing amuse me so much. | |
| | | | | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating Well, it is stealing... but, as with many laws, there's a big gap between the law, and the enforcement of the law. LOL
If every stupid little law on the books were enforced everywhere, they'd have to build a zillion new jails... and get aliens to be the jailors. Because I'm sure that almost all of us were guilty of something at some time. | |
| | | | 43193594Chauncey Gardiner
join:2005-08-03
CX 747-400 | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating said by unigamer:Well, it is stealing... but, as with many laws, there's a big gap between the law, and the enforcement of the law. LOL If every stupid little law on the books were enforced everywhere, they'd have to build a zillion new jails... and get aliens to be the jailors. Because I'm sure that almost all of us were guilty of something at some time. Actually, the law defines the act as copying and infringement. Says nothing about "stealing." | |
|
| Magnet2
join:2001-10-25
San Francisco, CA | First things first, artists do not have investors, they have producers. Occasionally, producers are the label (which do have investors) or a production company. Mostly produced by individuals, however.
On the outside chance that what you really mean by 'investors' are the people who buy into a record (i.e. the public). As such, and I think you're outnumbered here, I would like listen to a damn album on my iPod (well, it's an iriver)!
Secondly, Ol_boy, your trolling indicates, that by BBR not actively dissuading piracy, they must be all for it. Any news outfit should only be unbiased in a story. However, as any good republican can attest, unbiased simply means no criticism of the ruling party.
DRM in its current form does not work. RIAA and MPAA believe that the PC is not a trusted environment. This is the main reason for Vista being what it is, and what it requires. | |
| | | | | | I agree that piracy of music is morally wrong, but I think the recording industry association is tilting at windmills with their legal and public relations campaigns.
Once upon a time, it actually cost a non-trivial amount of money to copy and distribute music (and other content) to the masses, but that's simply not true any more. In fact, it's because someone can make a copy of a song and send it to a thousand other people at practically zero expense that we're having this conversation.
The RIAA is trying to assert its role as middleman between the musician and the consumer, and there's nothing wrong with being a middleman. However, the RIAA adds plenty of cost to the equation without adding much value. People recognize this (either conciously or intuitively), which is why so many otherwise law-abiding are willing to pirate music. Most folks understand that a reasonable profit is necessary for a business to survive, but they're going to resent any company that increases their costs just because it can. | |
| |  thender2Glamour ProfessionPremium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY | quote:
Retired Gov't Official
Explains a lot.
My method of finding music is by listening to it how I want.. buying CDs at a store is inconveinent and far too pricy(companies who charge record pressing prices for CDs should be driven out of business), and legal online downloads are all low quality, overcompressed trash.
Until they get a system that works, I'll continue downloading.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
| | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Bypassing DRM for personal use is not Piracy and is Not illegal.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| |
1 edit | said by Linklist:This is about the 50th attempt(probably a slight exaggeration; very slight) over the last year by BBR to justify music pirating. I'd like to see the reasons that they think stealing music is a justified activity. Sure the music publishers make tons of money, and they only promote certain artists. But that doesn't justify the stealing. If artists want to control their own fate, let them get together, find some investors, and start their own distribution channels outside of the RIAA. Let them distribute using P2P channels, and let them depend on voluntary PayPal accounts to make some profits. And about 2 yrs down the road, the artists and their investors will be whining like the RIAA about the lowlifes not paying for their work. My Web PageJoin Red Room Forum Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating.
Another troll......... | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | a 320k MP3 cant be seperated from a CD in quality. ive played Burned from MP3 and store bought CDs in my truck and cant tell the difference.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | |  stetVolitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating said by Kearnstd:a 320k MP3 cant be seperated from a CD in quality. ive played Burned from MP3 and store bought CDs in my truck and cant tell the difference. Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean that there isn't one, because there is.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
| | | | rds24aTeach Your ChildrenPremium
join:2000-12-13
Newton Upper Falls, MA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating A truck it probably not the best place to judge sound quality. Actually, headphones seem to cause flaws to show up the most. Particularly for quieter passages.
Realize, too, that all CD recordings are not the same. The original production quality and source method can impact audio quality.
Most of the music I listen to, the 128kbps ITunes AAC or 256kbps MP3 is fine, however I do hear loss on certain songs. There is NO compression method that will not affect the audio in some way. Unless the infrastructure becomes economically feasible to deliver 50 Mb music files online, then online music will have to sacrifice quality for convenience.
Then you add DRM in, which decides what level of convenience is appropriate. The jury is definitely still out on this one. Right now, I think ITunes has the best package. ITunes's restrictions are outweighed by the security, virus, moral, and legal issues of filesharing, but are still better than buying an overpriced CD worth of junk for 1 good song. CD's become even less desirable when they starting adding terms and conditions for personal use.
--
All hail JoePa | |
| | | | | stetVolitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI | Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating There are some loss less forms of music compression, but they are not as popular as iTunes' AAC or MP3s are, mostly because the files are larger.
Personally I never want just 1 song (if an band only puts out 1 song that I'm interested in, then I'm just not interested in that band), so services like iTunes are not for me. Buying CDs is great because I get the best possible quality for most music (some music is now available on better media, but not much yet) and don't have to worry about DRM or other issues. I can, if I wanted to, convert it to any other format for any specific reason.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
| | | | | | rds24aTeach Your ChildrenPremium
join:2000-12-13
Newton Upper Falls, MA Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Another BBR attempt to justify music pirating said by stet: and don't have to worry about DRM or other issues. I can, if I wanted to, convert it to any other format for any specific reason. And that is what the music industry wants to stop. And that I disagree with. My impression is that they want music to be like software...you buy only the right to hear the song on one device according to their terms and conditions. Little Jimmy wants the song on his MP3 player and his sister Little Suzy also wants it on hers. Why let Jimmy rip the song and give it to his sister when Mommy and Daddy will shell out $1.98 to download it twice?
--
All hail JoePa | |
|
| amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·KCH Cable
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| I'm sure Dave Grohl would laugh at this! Esp. this 1st comment here...
I heard him on the radio once (napster era) and he was very open about the arguments. He believes (as MANY artist do) that sharing is in our nature. That if somebody hears his stuff and likes it, that's one more fan even if they might not buy the album. It matters more that the exposure is happening so that when they TOUR those people show up. Of course many artists would not make it w/out distro/publishers/sharks of all types taking their cut along the way.
That's not the issue.
Surprise, foo sells foo! Does it matter one bit that it's also a top 'shared' song? Maybe, and it also shows from that article that they've sold a boatload of discs! That, IMO, is the fracking issue. Foo Fighters are proving to everybody that both worlds can exist... BBR is NOT saying hey everybody go find free Foo Fighters 'cause they're popular and stuff... Who taught you how to read, and between what lines???
I'm not even a big fan of the FOO, but dammit, Dave seems like an awesome guy. This story proves that 'sharing' aside, music still matters to people. Get over it. Pay for Rhapsody, go to iTunes and spend a buck or two, it's cheaper than gas and it lasts longer!!! | |
|
 Irun Manwhat obstacle?Premium
join:2002-10-18
Walden, NY | There's a workaround: "Sony BMG, a joint venture between Japan's Sony and Germany's Bertelsmann, said users can get the music onto iPods by transferring files to a PC, burning them to a CD, ripping the tunes to the hard drive and finally transferring them into Apple's iTunes software."
Quoted from the linked article. Cumbersome, but if you want to iPod this there's a legal way after all. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | Ridiculous. I hate it when a major news organization like Reuters gets it wrong. Incompatible with iPods? So what, both these albums are on iTunes. iPod users can just get it there. The burden is on the record companies to release a product that works. If they don't then people don't buy the product, not the other way around. | |
| | | Who is stealing from who ? Dirty Restrictive Media (DRM)only appears to kill fair use, frustrate and anger iPod owners.Which from the news posted, it appears legally purchased CD's just raped iPod owners,DEMAND your money back,except no excuses nor half witted lame brain bullshit "fixes" by sony.iPod owners you were sold faulty merchandise and the vendor knows it.
Sue them greedy money hungry smuck bastards for an inferior product.IMO,if I owned an iPod and bought that album, just to have it not play.I would tweak the laser or whatever reads the disc, then also sue for a new iPod stating it broke the iPod, when tryin to play the CD.
Did sony disclose the fact or mention the DRM installed on the cd before the purchase became final.? This rat in the sewer pipe (sony) is more of a con-artist and thief than the fans who legally obtained the shitty cd,or the file traders they crucify.
the album has topped the charts - selling 736,000 units since launch, (and 23,000 digital copies).
What is the purchase price of those 736,000 units? That's a hefty chunk of change their no doubt.Demand a full refund, you purchasers of this album, just on the principle of the DRM issue.
23,000 DRM digital copies sold online
Wow all i can say is WTF?? is wrong with you 23,000 people?? No wonder DRM is being implemented.When DRM is fully embedded in everything, i want to see who cries the loudest about it.Because when you want to know who is to blame,The only response givin' .Will be look in the mirror-That's who you blame.
--
Honk if you've never seen an uzi fired from a car window | |
| |
approval from:
guitarzan
| Re: Who is stealing from who ? said by "guitarzan":
Dirty Restrictive Media (DRM)only appears to kill fair use, frustrate and anger iPod owners.
"Digital handcuffs", my friend, "digital handcuffs". Start using that term, and people should "instantly get it". | |
|
| | Found on the net.... A bit of googling reveals the claim that booting a PC into Safe Mode allows the protection to be bypassed. That's some powerful protection there, pard  | |
| | |  I wonder if Dave Grohl got it to work on his iPod
»music.aol.com/artists/aim_celebr···rohl.adp
olmusic [2:15 P.M.]: what do you bring with you from home on the road?
nyourhonor [2:15 P.M.]: ummmmm
nyourhonor [2:15 P.M.]: laptop
nyourhonor [2:15 P.M.]: ipod
nyourhonor [2:15 P.M.]: razors
nyourhonor [2:15 P.M.]: immodium | |
|  cavemonkey50Monkey MadnessPremium
join:2003-11-22
Allentown, PA | You Can Still Put the Album on Your iPod Legally Just because you can't put the actually CD on a MP3 player doesn't mean you can't legally. The new Foo Fighter CD is available in the iTunes Music Store, and on Napster.
--
Xbox Live Gamertag: cm50 | |
| | | | Re: You Can Still Put the Album on Your iPod Legal So, by your logic, I have to buy it AGAIN? But, I've already purchased the CD, why should I pay itunes for another copy?
--
Grand Poobah | |
| | | cavemonkey50Monkey MadnessPremium
join:2003-11-22
Allentown, PA | Re: You Can Still Put the Album on Your iPod Legal Well, if your intended purpose for using the album is on a MP3 player, then buy it using a online music service. If you then have other uses for it, burn a CD of it, which can also be done legally.
By the way, I'm not sticking up for the RIAA. I'm just pointing out alternatives. If it was me, I would probably just download it off of Usenet.
--
Xbox Live Gamertag: cm50 | |
| | | | | | Re: You Can Still Put the Album on Your iPod Legal said by cavemonkey50:Well, if your intended purpose for using the album is on a MP3 player, then buy it using a online music service. If you then have other uses for it, burn a CD of it, which can also be done legally. There are much better alternatives than sacrificing sound quality or paying for something you already bought. Just disable autoplay/autorun and rip the CD like you normally would. | |
|
| | | | Well....Yes, so you have to buy it again. And again, and again, if you can be induced to. As I said in a different thread: This is what DRM and lawsuits are all about. Per use charging for the same content. If you can make people pay not just for the same item, but also for each unique usage of that item. Mo' money!
These media groups and their high-priced lawyers greed will ultimately kill any sympathy they are likely to get from the public in regards to profits lost by pirating. They will not be content to simply eliminate the illegal acquisition of copyrighted material. Their agenda goes much deeper, I'm afraid. | |
|
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Can't rip your CD to iPod? Well then we have the answer for you, just buy it again:
"Record executives said they were continuing talks with Apple to make such CDs compatible with iPods. In the meantime, Sony BMG also released versions of each album to Apple's iTunes service." | |
| | | Well, let's see here I just ripped both discs (bought and paid for) and they work fine on my iPod. What this is really about is people downloading the music legitimately and finding out that it uses a different encryption than their iPod uses.
This isn't even about pirating. It is about dumb ass RIAA tactics to put DRM on everything and then having that blow up in their faces.
Karl, get rid of that moron (poster #1) that can't seem to read. | |
| |  Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX | Re: Well, let's see here said by Spudge_Boy:Karl, get rid of that moron (poster #1) that can't seem to read. He's entitled to his opinion, as wrong-headed and narrow
minded as that may be. There's an advantage to going
Premium: you can ignore someone else's posts. I don't have
to read them if I don't want to.
--
"Kayura or Badamon, whichever you are, you should know that I will never give up this battle. By the will of the Ancient, I shall succeed!" - Shuten (Anubis) from the Ronin Warriors.To RIAA/MPAA - You can sue but you can't catch everyone! | |
| | | | | Re: Well, let's see here That is a good reason. | |
|
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
 MsGeekWe Jam Econo On This Ship, Sailor
join:2001-06-06
Panorama City, CA | So this uses a corrupted WINDOWS driver, hmm? I guess the moral to this story is that for unrestricted fair use of this CD, you have to be running Mac OS X or Linux? OK, duly noted. | |
| | | | Re: So this uses a corrupted WINDOWS driver, hmm? Only if you're incapable of pressing the shift key while the CD is loading or disabling autorun/autoplay altogether. Why Windows has autorun on by default is beyond me, but it's easy to disable. | |
|
 PhoenixAZGet A MacPremium
join:2004-01-04
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:1
1 edit | What you people are forgetting.... Most of you are forgetting that this DRM prevents people from loading music on to their iPod. When I buy a CD, I load its contents into my iPod, and safely store the CD away, and keep it only as a backup, then use my iPod for my primary source of music. Please DO note the fact, that I BUY CD's to load them on my iPod (This way artists still get paid, blah blah blah), I didnt steal them. Not everyone who sticks a CD in a computer is going to copy and hand the copies out to other people. | |
| | stetVolitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI | Re: What you people are forgetting.... It doesn't prevent you from doing anything if you were smart enough to have disabled autorun (auto insert notification) on your PC.
--
I am of the stars.
I am called "Forever".
Eternity courses through my veins. | |
|
| | These discs are not incompatible with iPods The DRM on these discs only works if you are running Windows. For those of us smart enough to run OS X or Linux, the DRM is useless. It doesn't work. So these discs can be ripped without any problem. The DRM on these discs runs only in Windows. So get smart people, throw Linux on your PC or go out and buy an Apple! | |
| | | | Re: These discs are not incompatible with iPods I think that the music industry needs to just wake up and see that even though it is illegal, it is probably the ONLY reason that a lot of artist are becoming big. If it wasn't for P2P networks, I would never have known about most of the artists I listen to. And yes, I do still buy music, I just choose to download music becuase it is a lot easier than hunting down some record. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
