I have quite a few MP3s. Virtually all of them are ripped from CDs I own. Most of the rest are legally free downloads (mostly classical music, some marches). The main reason I have these is so I can listen to music at work without tying up my CD drive with a music CD. What I’m doing is squarely within fair use. The Copyright Act gives the copyright holder no legal right to prevent me from doing this.
What evidence do you have to support your claim that this is NOT the most common use of MP3s ripped from music CDs?
While I personally agree with your sentiments on this issue I thought software made for the purposes of defeating copy protection is illegal.
I’m looking for a cite for this but IIRC the record industry has shown no slump in sales since Napster and the whole MP3 downloading thing got started. Their profits are as intact as they ever were. This would suggest that you, as an artist, is still receiving the royalties due you. Maybe it is anecdotal evidence but it does seem as if the music that is just plain ripped-off by some guy is made up for by the people who get a chance to listen to something and do, in fact, go out and buy your work.
I’m also kinda surprised at a musician’s defense of the record industry. It has been my understanding that the music industry has a hammerlock on all but the biggest name bands. Quite often it is they who decide who gets played and who doesn’t not to mention that your first few record profits will largely end up in their pocket. I would think that unless you are Metallica you would like to see options on the market that help break or at least diminish the control a few record labels have on the industry. What you are seeing with these rip-proof cds is the industry’s attempt to maintain its oligopoly.
about the selling songs 1 at a time thing. who wouldnt LOVE to be able to hit a site, select 15-20 of your favorite oldies/funk tunes/classic rock hits, pay a buck or 2 for each song and then download em. I would do this in a heart beat. just about the only songs I have that I dont own on cd are the few oldies that you cant find anywhere convenient. dont get me wrong I’m looking but these will most likely come from a used cd shop or even a pawn shop. its a damn good idea, the record industry would make a fucking MINT off it, but alas it has to do with music on the internet and they obviously have a huge problem with that idea.
You bring up an interesting point, Whack-a-Mole, I think that it is still legal.
I bring up the example of software games, many of which have a rudimentary form of copy protection which requires that the CD-ROM be in the system. However, for personal use, it is not illegal to make a disk image of the game, then use an executable script to redirect the program to run the game from the hard-drive image. (In some cases this allows games to run faster, and naturally reduces damage to my property–the CD-ROM.)
I’ll need someone who knows more than I to back me up on this, but I’m pretty sure copy protection only applies to distribution, not personal use.
As I have a number of friends who are successful musicians, I can understand musicguy’s sentiments. In fact, that is exactly why I do not collect or listen to pirated music.
But I am not about to restrict my own personal behavior because the manufacturer assumes that I will act as a criminal, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let Microsoft run this show. If you want to fix the problem, then fix the problem! Don’t penalize me while leaving the door wide open for those who would break the law, and while also allowing yet another corporate vampire to feed off of the musicians themselves.
Awww, c’mon, do we really need such harsh terms? I mean, it’s a capitialist society. They are just doing their job! They just happen to be doing a better Job than everyone else.
rjung, Gary Kumquat in his post had a link to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. One of the provisions that has got people really upset is a provision making it illegal to do anything to defeat a copy protection protocol.
There is a Russian currently in US jail for figuring out how to defeat the protection that can be put into Acrobat documents and then telling others how to do it.
My biggest beef with the new CDs is that the copy protection works be making the discs flawed. The discs do not conform to the new standard so in one sense they are selling deliberately defective merchandise.
Sofa King, I haven’t kept up with copyright law, but I beleive that what Whack-a-Mole refers to is that it is illegal now to attempt to defeat copy protections. I think that might be a categorical ban. IIRC, this made a bit of a stir recently when a Russian was arrected at a conference here in the States, because his Russian compnay had developed a way to defeat copy protections. I do know that this incident was mentioned around here. If I weren’t so lazy, I’d look up some of this.
It’s called the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). You may have heard it recently about the researcher who, under a challenge from the Secure Digital Music Initiative, defeated some of the protection schemes they had put in place. The researcher wanted to discuss his findings and was threatened with a lawsuit by the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) if he proceeded. Since the big stink of that whole thing the RIAA backed down and said it had never threatened a lawsuit. Still, the researcher faces potential prosecution (the RIAA thing would have been a civil suit had it progressed).
Frankly my guess is the RIAA doesn’t want the law challenged so soon against a person who is upstanding and had only done what was actually asked of him in the first place. They’d rather wait for some lowlife who’d find it harder to complain about his rights being trampled after being caught for pirating $1 million in CDs. In an interesting twist the researcher wants his time in court as a method for challenging the law on free speech grounds but it’s hard to see how this will happen if the plaintiff backs off.
Nevertheless the DMCA is still ont he books and unchallenged as of yet. This MSNBC article talking about what I just mentioned above states:
Not according to the RIAA’s midyear reports. Unit shipments of CDs from midyear 200o to 2001 are down 5.3%, representing $5.5 billion.
Like most corporations, the record companies operate at a very low profit margin. They’re seen as a very unattractive investment by professional investors because the ROI is so low (sometimes nonexistent). Something like 15 of 20 CDs brought to market never recoup their investment.
So what? Compare that decrease to the decrease in, say, personal computer shipments over the same period and you will find, I think, that the recording industry is still fairing quite well, even in a rather unfriendly economy. People are buying less. This does not mean that they are stealing more.
Lessee, nothing, like the economy, could account for that except Napster/MP3’s? And the industry never had a 5% dip in sales in a 6-month period ever before?
"Not according to the RIAA’s midyear reports. Unit shipments of CDs from midyear 200o to 2001 are down 5.3%, representing 5.5 billion."
didnt napster go down around 2000? if so then it could be said that napster was in fact SELLING records.
and I somehow have trouble thinking that the recording industry operates at anything less than a disgusting profit margin. come on it costs like a dime to press a cd. and they sell for 16 or so? even with a 50% retail mark up thats 7.90$ per cd. with profit like that the only reason these guys wouldnt be makeing cash hand over fist is if they were total idiots…hmmmmmm
Wow! It’s a good thing I didn’t assert that they were! Thankfully, nobody was harmed! Um, please light your Straw Persons aflame elsewhere please, and try to follow the conversation:
W-A-M: “I’m looking for a cite for this but IIRC the record industry has shown no slump in sales since Napster and the whole MP3 downloading thing got started.”
pld: “Actually, there has been a slump in sales.”
That was the totality of my reply. If you’re looking for someone to make connections between the slump and Napster, look elsewhere, and don’t put words in my mouth.
Oh, look, another one! :rolleyes: You may go stand in the corner with Tymp now, under the sign reading, “Arguing Against Things Other People Didn’t Say.”
Beats the shit out of me. I don’t recall that being the question, either. The question was, “Aren’t sales up or unchanged since the Napster/mp3 brouhaha?” and the answer is, “No, they are in fact down.”
Sofa King, its not that I want to beat a dead horse, but I think its fair to cite to you why we say this. (and, I finally bothered to look it up myself.)
From a .pdf file about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
Originally posted by pldennison
Unit shipments of CDs from midyear 200o to 2001 are down 5.3%, representing $5.5 billion.
Actually, these numbers are better used as evidence against the RIAA than for them. If you examine the PDF file at the bottom of the your link, you can compare Jan-June 2000 to Jan-June 2001 sales statistics. At the height of Napster usage (the Jan-June 2000 numbers) record sales were up not down. It was not until July 2000 when court injunctions against napster were set forth did the record sales start to decline.
I could concede that this is probably due more to a declining economy than the decline of napster but not if it is supposed to used as evidence by the RIAA that CD ripping and sharing is hurting their sales.
Yes, but nobody is particularly interested in what you think, except to the extent that it coincides with facts. Again, most corporations operate at a tiny profit margin,e ven the giants. In the most recent quarter Warner Music Group saw EBITDA of $87 million on revenue of $895 million. That’s down 11% from the prior year quarter, BTW. That’s 9% for that division, and that’s one of the better companies.
**
Right. And the music on the CD appears on it by magic, never having been produced by human beings, played on costly musical instruments, or laid onto digital or magnetic tape in expensive recording studios. Oh, and all the artwork, packaging, distribution, advertising, and promotion is free and appears by magic as well. Remarkable, no?
(Note to the sarcasm-impaired: Avert your eyes.)
**
Quick, alert Wall Street that there is a new financial wizard in town. :rolleyes:
So, it is established that record sales were down 5%, which is not exactly shocking with the current economical climate. OK.
I am curious how this MS proprietary plan for CD music will affect alternative Operating Systems, like Linux and Mac. (I use a Mac, along with a PC.) I don’t even have Windows Media Player installed on my Mac - it has gotten bad reviews and I just never need to use it. (And when I do, I just turn on my PC.) So if this devious plan goes into effect, how will it effect people like me?
I am one of those people who uses MP3s of music I own. I used to download music on the Internet (obscure film music) that I did not have on CD. However, I had this music on LP, I was just looking for an MP3 version of it. (If anyone has a CD to sell of John Addison’s score to “Swashbuckler”, let me know!) There’s a lot of good music that never made it to CD. And I’m too unsophisticated (and unmotivated) to try to “rip” my LPs to MP3, or burn them on CD. So what is wrong with downloading an MP3 of music I already own? None, that I can see.
There are a lot of reasons people use MP3s, and many of them are completely legal and above-board.
