Am I the only one who is confused by this?
It starts out saying this (emphasis mine):
But later, the campaign itself (again, emphasis mine)
What does this mean? It’s not illegal if the copyright holder gave permission?
Gateway is protesting a copyright bill, but I’m still confused.
Being against the bill doesn’t mean that you’re for pirating.
Yes, it’s legal if the copyrightholder gives permission.
from the yahoo news story you linked to:
I think this is the logic of the ad campaign:
Gateway is worried that the restrictions the music industry wants to impose will prevent the fair use of movies, music, etc. by consumers. For example, Celine Dion’s new CD apparently makes a lot of PCs crash. No, really, I’m serious. 
So Gateway thinks to itself, “Hey, our customers might hang onto their old machines if the music industry forces all new computers to have some ‘feature’ that prevents both legal and illegal use of music or movies.” Because they want people to buy new machines instead of keeping their old ones, they’re running this campaign to show everybody how much fun listening to a lip-synching cow can be.
Personally I find the idea of a Hip Hop Gordon Lightfoot track more upsetting than anything else…that would be just too surreal.
Give Gateway a break. They’re probably not going to be around in 18 months, anyway. And I suppose they guess any press is good press at this point.
That’s what you get, when your CEO looks to a cow for business advice. 
Kirk
Gateway (and everyone else, from Microsoft to Apple) wants to prevent Sen. Friz Hollings bill, the CPBDTA, from passing. That bill essentially mandates that any device capable of copying, storing, or playing media must have digital rights management (DRM) protection built in.
Tech companies don’t want the bill to pass because 1) it will kill a potentially lucrative market–if the law passes, than media companies won’t have to pay the tech companies to include DRM, and 2) legally mandated software/hardware features can get in the way of whatever they’re developing.
I went to the music stores–The Wiz, Coconuts and J&R–no “Sundown” there. You can’t steal music that is not being sold and never will be sold.
There will be more PCs crashing and motherboards fried for playing the virus music CDs in the future. That will be the way the consumers will be forced to buy the hardspyware.
I’ll respectfully disagree with this. A quick search at CD NOW returns many songs titled Sundown. However, if you mean the singing cow version, I don’t know.
I don’t like the bill either. It keeps consumers from being able to use things that they have spent money on. The record industry wants people to buy the same music multiple times, that is once for each media player that you may use.
Save the record industry, destroy the computer industry. Yeah that makes sense. Aren’t copyrights supposed to FURTHER progress?
Erek
Check out the group Stars on 54 and they’re dance version of “If You Could Read my Mind”. Surreal is a word for it. Dancing to a song about divorce, something disturbing about that.
As for Gateway’s fight, personally, I wouldn’t buy computer periphrials that require DPM. So they have a point there about hurting business. I have no sympathy for the record companies, and I don’t agree with their agenda for destroying the MP3 business. Since that advent of the MP3, I’ve actually bought MORE CDs, which I believe is consistant with CD sales since the advent of the MP3.
The reason that most other individuals are against the legislation is because, in the guise of preventing pirating, it could open the way clear to make leasing compulsory and enforcable. It’s the thin edge of a wedge. We’re talking about having the compulsory installation of a lock on your computer that you don’t own the key to.
Basically you could end up with a PC where you have no legal right to access anything on it without paying someone. If you want anything on your hard disk prepare to have it vetted. Nothing is allowed to be your private business or encrypted, after all you could be simply hiding something that you haven’t paid your rental on. The legislation takes control of your computer off your hands and leaves you as no better than a paying visitor.
Want to look at a web site that doesn’t use a licence certificate? Well how does your computer know this isn’t unpaid for licenced stuff that’s been ripped off? Nope, sorry, your computer cannot use any of that. If you want to browse properly why not visit one of these properly licenced web sites run by your friendly media mega-corp. Enter your credit card number here for a week’s subscription…
Now all this may be a viable and sensible way of financing the software and media industries, but would it benefit computer users or make for better computers? Most people don’t think so.
The legislation itself is been driven by media companies scared silly by the inroads that computer technology is making into their turf. Rather than find a way of providing media content that people might actually happily pay for on their computers, they have decided to force their way into the market by legislation. In a nut shell they want to own your computer and make it like TV. If you want to see or do anything on it you must first pay them money each and every time, or watch their adverts so that they can you sell other stuff.
Gateway fear that their customers simply won’t buy into it. They will keep their old stuff that doesn’t force this on them. And then there is the fact that this is only US legislation. Other manufacturers based in other countries will either ignore the requirements or provide easy ways for them to be by-passed.
It was sold. If it’s the same one as on the Gateway site, it was done by a group called Elwood, and the little twit (substitute another vowel in there–I usually do) with whom I shared an office and CD rotation privileges had the CD and played it often.
Gee, let’s take a generally banal song and make it even suckier. Great idea, guys.
The media companies need to embrace the new technology and learn how to change their business model accordingly. You can not stop technology. You come out with a copy protection and it will be broken in a matter of hours. Look at what MP3 allow you to do and find a way to make money off of it. If I can make a copy of a CD for less than a dollar than why should I have to pay $18 for a CD. I will just go download it. Basically the entertainment industry needs to realize everything has changed, at it is just going to worse for them. Do not fight the changes, learn to use them to your advantage. This is like not allowing high fuel-efficient cars on the market because the oil industry will loose money. It is just plain stupid.
Welcome to the SDMB, rastalin94. Glad you’ve joined, since it seems that some of your ideas have been borne of ignorance, which is what we fight here. Not going to hijack the thread here, but if you’d like, you can see a good disussion of the subject of how much a CD costs, etc. here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=31358 . Just be aware that the issue is a little more complicated than you’ve outlined.
I’m also not going to hijack this thread by pointing out to you that “just [going to] download” a CD is illegal and generally considered unethical.
As regards “not allowing high fuel-efficient cars on the market because the oil industry will loose money”: :rolleyes:
Actually Necros you misinterpreted what he said. He is talking about how the record industry should sell by downloading songs instead of selling cds because downloading is better. It is not illegal to download a song unless the copyright owners forbid it.
rastalin94 actually made a nice point, the music industry is using basically the same product delivery method that they used in the 50’s. Mass produce albums (or singles) deliver them to individual stores, have people pick what album they want and purchase. Technology has produced innumerable options that differ from this basic form, but they stick to the old ways. Custom-made compilations being just one option that I think a lot of people would like.
Actually, what really kills me about this issue is that the music industry implies that the ability of the public to copy music will be their ruination. They manage to say this with a straight face when, 20 or so years ago, the most popular format for music was magnetic cassette! Hell, anyone could copy a cassette, yet they survived, somehow.
That is because a fee was added to every blank cassette to allow for the fact that they were possibly going to be used to copy music. What is the modern equivilent? A fee on blank CD’s? A fee on new hard drives?
You are confused because the article is misleading, perhaps deliberately. The problem with the hollings bill isn’t that it would prevent piracy, its that it would also prevent fair use.
In fact, it’s likely that it wouldn’t actually prevent piracy at all, but ONLY prevent fair use. Professional pirates are notoriously hard to stop, and if pirated music had fewer use restrictions than legally-purchased music, why would any one want the legal version?
You already see this in the software industry some. I know people who buy music editing software, but then run cracked versions of the same software because the cracked versions are easier to install and have fewer bad interactions with other softare.
If the Hollings bill passes, then it’s likely that the same situation will begin to apply to music.
Thats why Gateway is against it, because it will harm legal users (and thus sales of computers that are covered by the law). and have virtually no benefit otherwise.
There IS a fee on blank CD’s.
Sterra and Cheesesteak, I don’t think I misinterpreted what s/he said. (Of course, if I did, I’m digging myself a deeper hole, here. :o )
I agree that record companies are using old means of distributing music, and that they really need to get on the stick and step into the real world, where people want to carry their music across multiple formats and make personal copies. I’m totally with that.
However, rastalin94 is using the old “they aren’t giving me what I want” and “they’re making more money off this than I think they should” and mistaken information about how much a CD actually costs to justify piracy and copyright infringement.
Just because a manufacturer doesn’t provide a product I want in a format I want doesn’t mean I have a right to steal that product.
This is, of course, true, and I should have been more clear in my earlier post. I apologize.