Color Me Skeptical
May 26th, 2008Nolan Bushnell says that a new computer chip will “absolutely stop piracy of gameplay.”
Really? Just like the XBox 360, eh?
Is it just me, or do these people constantly forget the golden-rule of software security: claiming your software is unhackable will only motivate hackers to hack it even faster.
New security steps like this one will certainly slow down some piracy for awhile, but it’s only a matter of time before it’s broken. When it is, expect the “next big thing” in software security to also be “unhackable” until it is, of course, hacked as well.
And this is, of course, why DRM is so stupid. Unfortunately, it seems like the most effective way to combat piracy is to probably have a compelling online component with a centralized server, as in an MMO. This is, aside from the obvious benefits of a continuous subscription-based revenue stream, another reason why MMOs are becoming more and more numerous. The MMO software itself is worthless: it’s the servers that you’re paying for, and the company can very easily control your access to that without having to worry about the threat of piracy.
But this also means that the single player PC game with no network interactivity (and eventually also the single player console game) is probably not going to be around for all that much longer, at least not in the way you might think. If you need proof, just look at the latest DRM scheme that EA tried to pull off for Spore and Mass Effect that everyone was in a tizzy about so recently. They may have removed it for now, but I guarantee you it is coming, and will eventually likely be far more annoying than the simple 10-day re-verification that EA was trying to do here. And yes, this will also be hackable… until companies start putting some or all of their code on to centralized servers only to be accessed by a thin or web client on your computer. That’s where this is eventually heading.
Posted in Commentary, Industry, Jeff, PC |
May 26th, 2008 at 7:17 am
It’s hard to decide which is more troublesome, software pirates or the DRM that has arisen because of their idiocy. The world would be a much better place if we could get rid of both. Too bad.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Software piracy is 1] as old as software, and 2] will never die.
DRM is 1] a recent phenomena, and 2] will die sooner or later. Thankfully, significant anti-DRM headway has been made in the music scene…but not so much in the games/movie scene.
Software stealing is justified when the content provider’s DRM is above and beyond into the realm of jackassery. For example, music industry. When the companies hold onto the outdated, irrelevant, and OVERPRICED CDs, and see the Internet as their enemy, and fuck with customers with rootkits on their PCs, or suing college students by harrassing universities to pawn their students for their sake, then yes - stealing music is justified.
I have no sympathy for creaky, conservative CEOs who cant do the job they’re highly payed for - that is, create great business plans around the customer. And I have no sympathy for outdated, irrelevant, and uneducated whiners a la Prince or Metallica.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I forgot to add, but many smart observers have already noted that the key is not spending sweat and blood in doing the impossible - defeating the pirates.
The key is competing with “free” - with superior features, ease of use, and quality experience. Pirates will not pay…but many many legit customers want to pay you money for your stuff. Cater to them…not to what the pirates are doing.
See also: Sins of Solar Empire
May 26th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
“The key is competing with “free” - with superior features, ease of use, and quality experience. Pirates will not pay…but many many legit customers want to pay you money for your stuff. Cater to them…not to what the pirates are doing.”
In other words, like I was saying with the “server-side” stuff. People are willing to pay on a monthly basis for the features that an MMO provides, and there’s basically no way to pirate the game. Sure, in some of these cases, “rogue” servers can sometimes be setup (I actually have no idea if someone has figured out how to put up their own “rogue” WoW servers yet), but these will massively pale in comparison to the real servers where 99% of the playing public is going to be.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
“I have no sympathy for creaky, conservative CEOs who cant do the job they’re highly payed for - that is, create great business plans around the customer. And I have no sympathy for outdated, irrelevant, and uneducated whiners a la Prince or Metallica.”
So, tell me Laspy, which CEOs, and/or artists DO you have sympathy for when their IP is pirated? Because, that’s who this is about. Not every artist/business executive is worthy of your scorn, believe it or not.
And yes, those artists/CEOs are being ripped off just as blatantly as the next guys.
The truth is, there is NEVER an excuse to steal music, even if you hate their “conservative” ideals. Even if you hate the musician. It’s pure bullshit to try to equivocate theft of music simply because you don’t like who you’re stealing from.
What if I decided I don’t like YOU laspy? Is it then ok to rip YOU off, simply because I have “no sympathy” for internet commentors who make silly blanket statements, or who generalize those with whom they disagree?
The answer is no.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
cisco,
For what it’s worth, saying that you “have no sympathy” for someone doesn’t necessarily equate to saying that you approve of infringement of their copyrights.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
@Rob,
Ok, sure, but thats not the point. The point is, surely there are some artists out there that laspy DOES have sympathy for when their creations are stolen, or at least one would hope so. His statement implies that those getting attacked by pirates on some level, “have it coming”. I don’t agree. I’m just saying that even if you don’t like someone or agree with their lifestyle, it’s still important to stand up for them when they are being blatantly wronged. I get the impression that when laspy says, “i have no sympathy” it really means, “I don’t like them so do whatever you want to them.” It’s just like free speech. We need to defend it, even when the speaker is saying things we disagree with. Either you’re against piracy, or you’re not. If you’re against it, the victim should be irrelevant.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:40 am
I suppose that’s true, but in some cases I have to admit it’s hard not to feel a bit of schadenfreude.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
@Rob,
“For what it’s worth, saying that you “have no sympathy” for someone doesn’t necessarily equate to saying that you approve of infringement of their copyrights.”
That’s a pretty absurd statement when the prior sentence concludes with, “yes - stealing music is justified.”
May 28th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Oh my.
Ok, first off, ciscoteque, it seems whenever I [and I assume, anyone else in other areas of your Reagancentric daily life] use the word “conservative” you automatically assume I am attacking the political definition thereof. I was merely describing the old-fashioned, internet-hating people out there, I was using it as a non-political synonym of “regressive”. Sheesh get a grip, old man.
Second, you should note the recent history of the music industry among North American labels. It is more extreme and astounding by far than all DRM-related stupidity from the games industry. You know that EA recently tried to push DRM on Mass Effect/Spore that “called home” every eleven days or your shit wouldn’t work? Well, that PALES in comparison to what the RIAA has done. I won’t go into details [you can research it for yoruself], but let’s just say that the RIAA, with the labels support, has [figuratively speaking] spat at the music fan, assfucked potentially goldmine models like Oink, has called for violation of net neutrality thanks to those “darned pirates” and - for godsakes - they tried to rootkit our PCs. Even now, some still believe ripping your music to an HDD is illegal.
LOLWUT.jpg
Furthermore, I was really aiming my vitriol at the labels and the few artists who have spoken out in support of archaic mindedness, who have basically championed suing sites like Napster and Youtube. Really, I was aiming my venom at the industry in general, not at the artists who get caught up in the middle. Again, those conservative executives - whose job is to create great business models - really hated DD, and really were hateful of models like eMusic [guess why Rolling Stones catalogue was suddenly pulled after being available for weeks? Because they be wantin mo' money!].
As a minor side note, I’m sure you as a super-pro-free market guy don’t want to hear this but….you know those overpriced $20+ CDs of old? Well, guess where they are heading? Hint: most artists that I know of, have their share of revenue at less than 20%…heck, their share of iTunes revenues will soon be ~7%, if Steve “Charismatic” Jobs gets his way.
Again, my comments do not apply to the games industry.
See also: Trent Reznor and his comments
May 28th, 2008 at 7:34 am
@Laspy,
Justify your comments any way you want, it’s still the same thing. Either you are against theft or you are for it. You’re simply equivocating based on the fact that you dislike a small group of “conservative” executives.
You say things like “they tried to rootkit our PCs”
Who is “they”? How many record companies actually used root kits? One? Two? I mean, give me a break. You’r condemning an entire industry based on the idiotic decisions of a very small minority. And based on that condemnations, you’re essentially advocating theft. It’s an infantile mindset. It’s no different than having a sales person at a used car lot screw you over so you go advocate stealing cars. “OMG the industry is corrupt!”
And I think you need some introspection my friend. You may not know it, but nearly every post where you piss and moan about something (which you do a LOT), you generally refer to those you whine about as “conservative”. I don’t care if you mean politically, socially, or otherwise, the point is the same, that word is CLEARLY a pejorative for you.
I always find it comical that the most “liberal” leaning online comments are often written by the most intolerant individuals. People who claim to be liberal, either socially, or politically, should stand for diversity of opinion, but that is rarely the case. Such liberal attitudes tends to hate all views that are not equally liberal, even in the case of Laspy, where it’s ok to economically injure those you disagree with.
Well, I’m here to say that this attitude goes beyond the concept of liberal or conservative, to that of anarchy. If the rule of law doesn’t apply to anyone who feels “wronged” by an entire industry and should simply be disregarded because you feel like CEO’s are “evil”, I can’t imagine what kind of world this would become.
You may hate the idea, but it IS a free market.
You and everyone else has the right, and I would go as far as to say OBLIGATION to NOT BUY music if you disagree with what the industry is doing. That DOES NOT MEAN that you can then steal it. That’s going way too far and completely unjustifiable. The idea that you even try is, to my “conservative” mind, quite pathetic.
If you want to change the ways of these “evil” CEOs, you going to have to learn to live without their product, not simply learn to get it without paying for it. One is the right way and one is the wrong. If you literally can’t live without music, then guess what, those “overpriced CDs” might not be so overpriced afterall.
And then you say, “my comments do not apply to the games industry.” You DO realize the industries have a HUGE overlap don’t you? Ever heard of Sony? Yeah, they’re one’s with the root kit. They are huge in both the gaming and music industry. Don’t you realize that stealing from Sony music is stealing from the same pot that helps fund Sony gaming? I mean you’ve got to think about this further. You call me “old” but I contend that you need to do some serious growing up. Your view of the world is so shallow, bitter and ill-thoughtout that it’s almost embarrassing.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Not that I want to dive right into this, but surely there should be some regulation or consumer-protection in cases where, in fact, a company or industry IS unjustifiably misleading, misinforming, or just in general, hurting the consumer. I agree with a free market and consumer choice, but clearly a free market can’t resolve everything (for instance, industry collusion comes to mind), particularly when all the information is not readily available to the average consumer.
I hope, Cisco, that you don’t see this as my attempt to justify “stealing”, as I surely don’t agree with that. But I think the picture your painting of the situation may be a bit more black and white than it really is. =)
May 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
@Jeff,
Not only am I glad you brought it up, but I completely agree with you. While I think the free market should generally be left alone, and that the consumer is generally more capable than you may give them credit for, there are definitely instances where regulation and consumer protection is required. That this situation requires that type of action is certainly worthy of debate. I think the lazy answer is to just ignore this kind of necessary debate and instead of fixing a perceived problem, some people simply use it as an excuse to steal.
That being said, I honestly do believe that if someone has a legitimate complaint about something being overpriced, particularly an item like music, that’s not absolutely necessary to buy, then they need to exercise their rights not to buy it. If people of conviction actually did this regularly, the price would come down (and I think it has). I mean, c’mon, we’re not talking about food, or medication, or transportation here.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
1. It is stealing. I was never covering that. It is theft.
2. In sharp contrast to teh games industry and movie industry [that I know of, to the best of my knowledge, correct me if i'm wrong], teh music industry has concentrated on suing customers, exploiting universities as unwilling pawns of their business plans, has rallied for control of the internet [ex: support for throttling p2p], tried to illegalize HDD ripping, and basically wasted everyone’s [read: many music fans] patience with their actions through DRM and the RIAA. The rootkit shit is just one out of numerous episodes since 2000.
To me, that is grounds for not supporting the industry’s direction…which would mean not getting involved with music. But that is nonsense: people care and want to support their artists. How? By going to their concerts, buying their merchandise, and stealing - yes, stealing - their music. By sharing it amongst other people who never heard of them, by increasing the awareness of said act. It is stealing, but it is also supporting teh act’s popularity.
Furthermore, i said this a billion times: it is not our responsibility as consumers to do the job of executives: come up with an internet business plan. [and yet it is a few intrepid artists and industry observers who are coming up with them. oh lol].
3. Again, you are butthurt with anyone that uses “conservative.” Lemme come up with an old quote from this very blog, from me: “I almost always hyperbolize and exaggerate for dramatic effect. It’s how I roll.” The word was only, as I’ve said before, a description for the people who are unable to look to the present and future in terms of business realities in the music industry.
Yet this is the big irony, the hypocrisy: While I use “conservative” as a mere non-political descriptive adjective, ciscoteque decides to bash and generalize liberal minded folks as “most intolerant individuals” or against “diversity of opinion” and “hate all views that are not equally liberal.” OH my, those are some damn broad brushstrokes, my friend. Why the need to get so politically partisan, when this whole issue IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS!?
[And I suppose, according to your enlightened views, conservatives are "considerate of a mulititude of opinions" and are rarely if ever "intolerant individuals" and have no hatred or contempt for non-conservative opinions? Please. Enough partisanship.]
And the big cracker is this: I am not even as liberal as ciscoteque paints me as [unless we're talking about social conservatism, which is unjustifiable]. I am actually a political moderate who leans sharply left on some issues and right on others. And there are many things about liberalmindedness that I detest as well. But i digress.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Oh, i forgot to mention: If people mass-stopped buying music, period…..then that would signal that the entire industry is FUBAR.
If people shared - excuse me, stole - music, then that would signal that the industry is infact alive and vibrant….but untapped. DO you really think people would’ve come up with ideas like iTunes, eMusic, Amazon music, etc without pioneers like Napster and its spiritual followers? Do you not see that before the industry shifts direction, it must follow consumer patterns, and to do so, the consumer pattern MUST ACTUALLY EXIST? Do you not understand that such massive music sharing and stealing on teh Internet signals a new, better, more efficient era and a new future in the music industry, and NOT BUYING OR STEALING OR ANY MUSIC ACTIVITY ANYWHERE signals there is NO future in the industry? That the quote “If you literally cant live without music, then guess what, those overpriced CDs might not be so overpriced afterall.” is such an insulting, misleading strawman argument that can be used to justify almost anything? and misses the point?
And finally, can you comprehend that by suggesting that [with decreased demand] CD prices will come down…doesn’t begin to address why consumers are pissed, and that you are grossly misunderstanding what people want vs. what executives think they want? [i.e. price is only a small portion of the issue at hand]
May 28th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
When I use the word conservative, I’ve never mean politically. I do however find it humorous that you make a comment like: “OH my, those are some damn broad brushstrokes, my friend.”
While then making a comment like, “conservatives are “considerate of a mulititude of opinions” and are rarely if ever “intolerant individuals” and have no hatred or contempt for non-conservative opinions? Please.”
It seems you’ve become a victim of the very irony you sought to reveal.
I also find it telling that you admit to using the word conservative as a synonym for regressive and old.
Try to say you “hyperbolize” as much as you wish, you’re still flat out advocating theft.
To say that said theft somehow benefits the artists in question by “increasing the awareness” is irresponsible at best and ludicrous at worst.
“unless we’re talking about social conservatism, which is unjustifiable”
Do you even know what Social Conservative means? Or do you misunderstand the term in the same way that you use the word conservative to mean regressive?
I’m a social conservative and I’m proud of it. Its a much more easily justified position that one of stealing from people you disagree with because somehow it helps them. Let me tell you a few things about what I believe as a social conservative.
I believe abortion is wrong and is not federally protected by the constitution and therefore should be regulated by the states.
I believe families are important to society, even if those families are not traditional in nature.
I believe in a strong military.
I believe in first amendment rights and that my second amendment rights may be necessary to defend my first amendment rights.
I believe we need to reform welfare so it’s less of a reward for doing nothing and more of an assistance program to help people to eventually not need it.
I believe we need more accountability in the public school system.
I believe that the US as a nation needs to be more competitive in business and industry.
I believe hard work should be rewarded, both financially and socially.
I believe people are better suited to take care of themselves and each other than the government is.
And yes, I believe stealing is wrong.
For the record, I may disagree with your views, but insofar as they adhere to what is legal, I have no contempt for your opinions. I would say that based on your admittedly hyperbolic comments, you can’t say the same about people like me.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“If people shared - excuse me, stole - music, then that would signal that the industry is infact alive and vibrant….but untapped.”
I disagree. I buy plenty of music. So do most people. The problem isn’t the people buying the music, it’s the people stealing it. You’re screwing the rest of us by creating a need for DRM. If it weren’t for internet thieves, I doubt I would have to worry about rootkits at all. The theft only begets more theft. Many of the reasons you cite as an excuse to steal exist because of piracy. Piracy has created the very environment you detest.
“DO you really think people would’ve come up with ideas like iTunes, eMusic, Amazon music, etc without pioneers like Napster and its spiritual followers?”
Absolutely.
“And finally, can you comprehend that by suggesting that [with decreased demand] CD prices will come down…doesn’t begin to address why consumers are pissed, and that you are grossly misunderstanding what people want vs. what executives think they want?”
Ok, please tell me again why consumers are pissed and what they want.
I’ll tell you what I want. I want to be able to buy a CD for under $10 and to be able to rip the songs and play them on any device I choose. I want to be able to buy downloadable songs for under $2 and to be able to play them on any device I choose. In my mind, the biggest thing keeping me from being able to do this is not the record companies or the RIAA but the pirates.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
“The problem isn’t the people buying the music, it’s the people stealing it. You’re screwing the rest of us by creating a need for DRM. If it weren’t for internet thieves, I doubt I would have to worry about rootkits at all. The theft only begets more theft. Many of the reasons you cite as an excuse to steal exist because of piracy. Piracy has created the very environment you detest.”
I think this is partially correct… I think there’s probably sort of a vicious circle here. There are pirates, yes… but that is, unfortunately, always going to be the case. What often occurs, however, is that industry folks look at the piracy out there and assume that every piece of piracy is a lost sale, which is probably not even close to correct. They then assume that this must be the reason why they’re not doing quite as well as they should be doing, and therefore they should implement draconian measures to cut back on it anyway they can.
This, of course, further upsets their LEGAL customers, causing them to probably cut back on their purchases, and to make the percentage of piracy look even higher than it was in the past… etc.
Also…
“I’ll tell you what I want. I want to be able to buy a CD for under $10 and to be able to rip the songs and play them on any device I choose. I want to be able to buy downloadable songs for under $2 and to be able to play them on any device I choose. In my mind, the biggest thing keeping me from being able to do this is not the record companies or the RIAA but the pirates.”
It’s quite arguable, to me anyway, that every one of these has been mightily fought by the music companies, until recently. They’ve even, as Laesp has said, argued that you don’t have the right to make a digital copy of your music. The “legal backups” requirement for these kinds of things have been fought by EVERY MEDIA company as their media becomes easier to copy. So this isn’t a fluke.
But why has the music industry started to relent on some of this stuff, like DRM? I’d argue that piracy, actually, probably did create an incentive for them. People didn’t want something that they couldn’t port over onto whatever device they wanted, so they just pirated it if they wanted that. Now, instead, you can go to Amazon and buy non-DRM music for under $1. Ironically enough, I actually don’t know if we would’ve seen something like that without Napster and the like unleashing free music to everyone with an internet connection.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I agree Jeff, it’s certainly a vicious circle, but lets be careful not to be of the mindset of “there is always going to be piracy, so lets not try to limit it”. Keep in mind, that most types of crimes have existed since the beginning of time and it behooves us as a society to attempt to limit their purveyance. This problem is additionally difficult to grasp when we (the average joe) most likely don’t, and may never, have personal IP being pirated.
That being said, I would argue that a MAJOR reason that record companies have fought the concept of fair use (and net neutrality, etc), is that, in reality, fair use is often just a euphemism for piracy. Let’s be clear, the reason MANY people want to be able to “back up” a DVD is so they can “back up” the DVDs they RENT. Obviously, corporations are motivated by the bottom line and I don’t expect them to act with benevolence. But I think it’s incumbent upon us as consumers to make corporations re-evaluate how they achieve that bottom line and I don’t think that means, “teach them a lesson by stealing” as Laspy clearly believes is the answer.
But, make no mistake, I’m the biggest advocate of fair use ever. Thats why it pisses me off when pirates use something like legitimate fair use legislation and it’s advocates as a means to their own illicit ends.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I agree with Jeff. cisco, while music piracy is not a good candidate for defensibility, you’re badly overstating your case. Let’s take these one at a time, starting with one from paz:
___________________________
1. It is stealing. I was never covering that. It is theft.
No, it is not. It is copyright infringement. I know you’re all chomping at the bit to accuse me of a semantic distinction, but this is a nontrivial point. When you cast the violation as theft, you allow the issue to be framed in an entirely different light with entirely different penalties, by appealing to an unwarranted sense of familiarity. People know what stealing is. They know it’s illegal. We have pre-existing penalties for that stuff with which they’re already familiar. Please note that what I’m saying here is not the same as saying it’s acceptable.
cisco:
_________________________________
Who is “they”? How many record companies actually used root kits? One? Two? I mean, give me a break. You’r condemning an entire industry based on the idiotic decisions of a very small minority.
As of 2005, per Wikipedia, Sony BMG controlled 21.5% of the global music market. That may not be a majority, or even a plurality, but it’s hardly an insignificant proportion, and it’s a stretch to describe that group as a “very small” minority. Unlike the suits brought against P2P users, the few lawsuits that the debacle spawned are not of a crippling magnitude to Sony, merely one instance of disproportionate force designed to damage those least able to fight. And it’s not surprising that paz, and most other people, see a monolithic “they” instead of labels. Most people don’t know or care what label their favorite acts are signed to. To them their music comes from Amazon, or Best Buy, or Sam Goody. They could give a crap whether musicians are signed to Arista, or Columbia, or whatever. If you want to blame someone for that, blame the labels. They aren’t exactly marketing themselves.
And as paz noted, this is not the only case of content companies taking undue and almost certainly illegal liberties with their customers’ private property because they felt it was justified in the name of protecting their IP from infringement. See also SecuROM, StarForce.
_____________________________
Ok, please tell me again why consumers are pissed and what they want.
I can’t vouch for what everyone wants, but I know what I want: pretty much what Amazon MP3 has finally, finally given me. High quality, DRM-free MP3s at reasonable prices ($10 or under an album [except for double albums which are a few bucks more], or $0.89-$0.99 a track), properly tagged and with embedded album art. Thanks to Amazon, I’m finally a music customer again, having stopped buying CDs — formerly a habit of mine approaching the frenzy of cokeheads — when they decided to start suing customers. It’s only taken how many ill-advised initiatives?
Here’s the things that I’m pissed about:
- Non-complete label buy-in: I want to give you my money. Really. I do. Stop making it hard for me — put your product up for sale. This problem has been declining as Amazon’s been signing more and more deals, but I still regularly find albums or even entire artists not purchasable via Amazon MP3.
- Fear of price-gouging in the future: It’s no secret that the labels are mad that iTunes’ no-variable-pricing policy is keeping them from upping prices on customers. I worry that if iTunes is ever unseated the customer rape will proceed like you’ve never seen before.
- Prices are sometimes still too high: No, this album shouldn’t cost $16.89. That’s about what the CD costs. And guess what? Your distribution costs, unlike CDs, are basically nil, and I don’t get the stuff I would get if I bought the CD, like a cover, a physical copy or liner notes. Why does anyone think this is okay? And where does this money go? Straight to executive pockets. Here’s a good read on just what a crap deal recording artists get. You aren’t supporting the artist, you’re supporting executives who make more in a year than you’ll see in 20.
- Erosion of rights: Labels aren’t content to screw us as much as they have been for years, they want to screw us more. They’re chipping away at long-established practices that are rightfully covered under the Fair Use doctrine — their lawyers are now claiming that ripping a CD to MP3s is illegal. That is so patently offensive to me I can’t even find the words to express it. The record industry wants to have its cake and eat it too.
- Suing users: Look. You want to protect your business. I get that, and I don’t blame it. But suing people isn’t going to help you. All it’s going to do is get more people pissed off at you, and a lot of those people are going to feel like paz does — that it justifies their infringement.
- Bundling: Like it or not, people are accustomed to buying individual tracks now. If you release a CD with two good tracks, you’re going to get about $2 a head in sales, or about $1 a track. The days when you could get away with charging $18 for a CD with two tracks people want are gone. If you continue to produce such a low signal-to-noise ratio, then you’d better be prepared to watch revenues drop. Don’t like it? Sign artists who make better albums. Train your talent scouts better. The industry has skated by on this lazy business model for too long — so-called CD and cassette “singles” were an even worse value proposition.
- Complete failure to grasp consumer desires: Have you heard the latest? Apparently Warner Music thinks that what I really want, if only I knew it, is to buy (rent?) music at $0.10 a track, to be playable only in a private, proprietary player. Apparently I’m wrong, and I don’t really want music that will be playable on any portable music device. What I really want is something that I can’t use on any of them.
In short, we don’t appreciate the high-handed stance of copyright holders who don’t even come close to “getting” us or what we want. If that’s a problem for you, well, sucks for you, because as our generation grows up, we’re gonna start being the majority right quick, and most of us feel the same way. We’re finally waking up from years of being ruthlessly exploited, and we’re pissed about it.
Oh, and for the record… I buy my music. I’ve probably put Jeff Bezos’ kids through college twice over.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
@Rob,
I appreciate your thoughtful reply.
“you’re badly overstating your case.”
I think we may be in the same boat on this one. I’ll explain….
“No, it is not. It is copyright infringement.”
Actually, it IS theft. Copyright Infringment is a very broad and subtle term. One of the many ways one can “infringe” upon someones copyright is by copying the work without authorization from the holder. In the case of digital media, this is absolutely stealing. I think you’re unintentionally hiding behind an issue that isn’t so much semantics as it is one of historical terminology. Larceny is theft. It’s taking someone elses property without permission. In this case, you’re taking (by copying) someone elses property without permission. There is a logical equivalence here that is important and the foundation for copyright law existence. It is to protect someone from the theft of things that are somewhat intangible but yet still considered “property”.
“Who is “they”? ”
“As of 2005, per Wikipedia, Sony BMG controlled 21.5% of the global music market. ”
This is a misleading statistic, although, I’ll give you credit because my choice of words was poor. A more accurate question would be, what percentage of released CDs contained rootkits?
And speaking of rootkits, it nicely illustrates my point about the consumer. Astute consumers discovered the root kits and Sony was pretty seriously damaged as a result. I feel this was a satisfactory result. I think they know this type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable and the market will punish any similar attempts.
“To them their music comes from Amazon, or Best Buy, or Sam Goody. They could give a crap whether musicians are signed to Arista, or Columbia, or whatever. If you want to blame someone for that, blame the labels. They aren’t exactly marketing themselves.”
With this, I have to categorically disagree. It’s a consumers responsibility to understand where and for what they are shopping. I’m a firm believer in due diligence and “let the buyer beware”. It would be nice if companies did a better job of differentiating these types of things but I don’t think it’s their responsibility to make sure that potential pirates know exactly who they are hurting if they should infringe on copyrights.
“this is not the only case of content companies taking undue and almost certainly illegal liberties with their customers’ private property because they felt it was justified in the name of protecting their IP from infringement.”
Companies engaging in illegal activity, even to protect copyright, are just as bad as pirates to be sure, but said actions do not create an excuse for piracy. Nor does piracy create an excuse for such actions on the part of music companies. Two wrongs don’t make a right as they say.
“- Non-complete label buy-in: I want to give you my money.”
Agreed. Me too.
“Fear of price-gouging in the future”
This is a totally legitimate fear that I share. Although, I think I have more faith than some that the market would sort it out. But thats another discussion.
“Prices are sometimes still too high”
I agree. IMHO $16 is too high for almost any album, downloaded, shelved, or otherwise. This is a personal call. I have coworkers who buy oodles of DVDs at $19.99 and CDs at $15.99 and think nothing of it. I think they are insane.
“And where does this money go?”
I don’t personally care as long as it’s not going to terrorists. Sure, I would love it to go to artists, but again, it’s their job to negotiate a contract, not mine. Either the price is too high for me, or it’s not. I don’t want to police a corporations profits anymore than I want them to police the products I bought from them. Anything else would be hypocritical.
“Erosion of rights” This is a huge problem, and as I stated, one that I believe is exacerbated by piracy.
“Suing users”
I don’t like this either, but honestly, I see it more as a PR problem. They shouldn’t do it, even if they are righteous in doing so. It’s just a bad move. But again, it doesn’t justify piracy.
“Bundling”
Again, I agree. I just wish the Cable TV industry would undergo the same switchover from bundled content. Quite frankly, it’s maddening.
“Complete failure to grasp consumer desires: ”
This misses the mark. They know exactly what we want. They’re just afraid to give it to us.
Again, thanks for you thoughts. I really do appreciate a candid exchange of ideas, preferably without insult or inane hyperbole.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
cisco,
Thanks for your comments. A few I wanted to address:
Actually, it IS theft.
No, it’s really not. It requires neither taking physical control of property nor depriving its owner of its use. See Dowling vs. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) for precedent.
This is a misleading statistic, although, I’ll give you credit because my choice of words was poor. A more accurate question would be, what percentage of released CDs contained rootkits?
And speaking of rootkits, it nicely illustrates my point about the consumer. Astute consumers discovered the root kits and Sony was pretty seriously damaged as a result. I feel this was a satisfactory result. I think they know this type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable and the market will punish any similar attempts.
For what it’s worth, I addressed the question you posed. I can’t be held accountable if you asked the wrong question.
Regarding damage to Sony, I think if you note the damages Sony suffered, you’ll agree that they represent a drop in the bucket to a company of that size.
As for whether they learned their lesson, well, I’ll let their behavior speak for itself. Whether it’s negligence leading to consumer security hazards or anti-consumer copy protection practices, I think it’s quite clear that they’re not done making trouble for their customers, although that particular snafu was bad enough PR that perhaps they’ll refrain. SecuROM is alive and well, though, and I think StarForce may still be around as well.
With this, I have to categorically disagree. It’s a consumers responsibility to understand where and for what they are shopping.
Why should they? The labels have been lying to them for years about this very issue. Whenever piracy comes up, Cary Sherman or Hilary Rosen or whoever the current mouthpiece for the Evil Empire happens to be at any given time screams shrilly about how they’re doing all this for the benefit of the artists. I’d agree if there weren’t so much deliberate misinformation being spread about.
I don’t personally care as long as it’s not going to terrorists. Sure, I would love it to go to artists, but again, it’s their job to negotiate a contract, not mine. Either the price is too high for me, or it’s not. I don’t want to police a corporations profits anymore than I want them to police the products I bought from them. Anything else would be hypocritical.
On this one we’re going to have to agree to disagree. The labels hold all the power in our system, and they deliberately misrepresent the situation to artists. See the Steve Albini article I linked in my previous comment.
Companies engaging in illegal activity, even to protect copyright, are just as bad as pirates to be sure, but said actions do not create an excuse for piracy. Nor does piracy create an excuse for such actions on the part of music companies. Two wrongs don’t make a right as they say.
…
I don’t like this either, but honestly, I see it more as a PR problem. They shouldn’t do it, even if they are righteous in doing so. It’s just a bad move. But again, it doesn’t justify piracy.
I didn’t say it justified piracy. You asked why we’re mad. I told you. No more, no less.
Again, I agree. I just wish the Cable TV industry would undergo the same switchover from bundled content. Quite frankly, it’s maddening.
There’s some hope on this front. FCC Chair Kevin Martin has a serious thing for unbundling. The issue is at least being explored. The opposing arguments are much like those who oppose such regulation in the record industry and in the broadband industry — that our free market system is sorting it out just fine and we have plenty of competition. Only trouble is, in each case, that premise is false. Anyone who knows anything about the broadband industry, for example, knows that there’s scarcely any meaningful competition.
This misses the mark. They know exactly what we want. They’re just afraid to give it to us.
Perhaps this is true. It might be more accurate to say that most of the alternatives they’ve proposed are ludicrous.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Addendum: Yes, SecuROM is alive and well — and developed by Sony. Guess your faith in their education is a bit misplaced. Shame.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Ok, this is enough.
Let’s agree to disagree. I would like to extend an olive branch to my anonymous internet rival, or dare I say, my Stephen A. Douglas [that would make me Lincoln! :D], my dear Ciscotechno. I would like to bow myself out in a finale, an encore, and thank the wonderful community in ALTTF for this debate! Trust me, nowhere else would I spend so much text and time arguing with the internet. It was as much for the lulz as it was for insight into what people who are of opinions and spectrums opposite to mine are thinking and saying.
And as a side note, I would like to repeat what I have said before: my definition of “social conservatism” may be different from yours; I would define it as conservatism of non-economic and non-political issues, such as the anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, and anti-separation of church and state [in decades past, it was also anti-colored people and anti-feminism....in many institutions, it still is]. [and as a very minor side note: opposing abortion means mandating the govt to interfere with what is an individual's VERY PERSONAL decision....and is in direct violation of the "small govt" mantra many of those same people believe]. As I said, I am really a moderate politically, and support “small govt” in many areas, such as vastly scaling down Social Security and Medicare, reforming the questionable welfare system and FEMA, and scrapping entirely the Govt wiretapping and unauthorized surveillance, Govt’s fuckass TSA, Affirmative action, and for godsakes man, get the Crazy Christian Pollution [no offense to moderate Christians] out of the frakken system [abstinence-only BS, creationism and mandatory prayer in school, do this in your private schools!.....altho this is a social conservative issue, not political]. I can be liberal too, with support for Universal Health Care, decreasing the executive branch’s overindulgent power, govt regulation in some areas like an actual Broadband policy in place and in action [Cable companies and Duopoly in the Free Market LULZ], etc etc.
PS: u no i stil luv you, ciscotechno
May 28th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I think I’ll just let Rob talk from now on, since he’s much better at it than I. =) But I did want to respond to one little nugget:
“I agree Jeff, it’s certainly a vicious circle, but lets be careful not to be of the mindset of “there is always going to be piracy, so lets not try to limit it”.
I didn’t say we shouldn’t try to limit it, but the manner in which we do that is important. We could probably limit all kinds of minor crimes if we had extremely draconian measures for them… cutting off limbs, death penalty, etc… This is not to say that the labels, publishers, etc, should do nothing to limit piracy, but I do think that 1) Treating customers better and 2) Educating consumers could go a long way towards reducing piracy. I actually think there’s been some progress on this front, as Rob pointed out, with Amazon now selling DRM-free tracks for a reasonable price, CDs have basically completely moved away from DRM (to my knowledge) and are often around $10 to buy now, and even experiments like Radiohead’s In Rainbows, where they let people DECIDE THEIR OWN PRICE, was successful… Hell, Megan and I actually bought the digital album AND the physical CD once it was finally available.
That said, I’m actually still a fan of the CD when the price is right… To me it seems silly to spend $10 on a digital album that’s actually of poorer audio quality than the CD. If they start selling $10 losslessly ripped albums, I may be more interested. I know that most people can’t really tell the difference, but to me it definitely seems like there’s a difference on some tracks (and if the price is the same, I may as well have the higher quality version anyway, right?)
May 28th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
“I didn’t say we shouldn’t try to limit it, but the manner in which we do that is important.”
I agree, but now we’re debating specifics of what’s effective, which is a completely different conversation. It’s certainly a conversation worth having, but I think it’s beyond the purview of where this all started. My point isn’t about whether or not what record companies do is right or wrong. I think we can all agree that they’ve gone too far. The question is whether or not that actions of record companies is an excuse for piracy. Personally, I don’t think it is.
“We could probably limit all kinds of minor crimes if we had extremely draconian measures for them…”
I think there are quite a few places that do this exact type of thing. However, I’m not sure it’s effective. But again, I don’t think that’s the point. Whether or not cutting off someone’s hand for theft is the right response doesn’t address the issue of whether or not stealing is wrong.
Thanks to everyone for their input in all this, even Laspy.
One final note:
“my definition of “social conservatism” may be different from yours”
To be clear, it’s also different that what the rest of the world traditionally defines the term to mean.
“such as the anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, and anti-separation of church and state”
Well, this explains a lot. You’re clearly confusing social conservatism with cultural conservatism. I’m not even sure what you’re describing is a fair understanding of cultural conservatism, which is commonly held beliefs of the Christian Right. The Christian Right is absolutely NOT the same as Social Conservatism. You owe it to yourself and others to educate yourself before you start casting dispersions here.
“and as a very minor side note: opposing abortion means mandating the govt to interfere with what is an individual’s VERY PERSONAL decision”
This is completely untrue, but this debate is much longer, so I won’t start it here. Suffice it to say, we have a different opinion of what constitutes a human life and that based on that belief, Social Conservatives recognize an additional set of human rights at issue in the case of abortion.
“mandatory prayer in school, do this in your private schools!…..altho this is a social conservative issue, not political”
Mandatory school prayer is not a Social conservative issue. I’m not even sure it’s generally a cultural conservative issue outside the really really nutty far-right wing christians.
I think they may be fighting to ALLOW it, but not to mandate it.
As a Social Conservative, I’m absolutely against mandatory school prayer. I do however think the pledge of allegiance should be recited in public and private schools. I personally don’t, but if some people have a problem with the word “god” in the pledge, that’s fine, and they have a right to attempt to have it’s removal.
“decreasing the executive branch’s overindulgent power”
This is absolutely a social conservative issue.
See there Laspy, you’re a red blooded social conservative. I knew it!
May 29th, 2008 at 12:35 am
For the record, Wikipedia’s definition of “Social conservatism” actually does include some of the things that Laesp says is typically indicative of “social conservatism”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservative
Perhaps cisco is a special kind of “Social Conservative”.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:13 am
The name’s Laspy.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Also I support 2nd amendment [cons.] even though 1st amendment is more important [lib.]
May 29th, 2008 at 8:18 am
@Jeff,
“For the record, Wikipedia’s definition of “Social conservatism” actually does include some of the things that Laesp says is typically indicative of “social conservatism”.”
Not really, and certainly not in the sense he presents them.
From Laspy
“I would define it as conservatism of non-economic and non-political issues, such as the anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, and anti-separation of church and state [in decades past, it was also anti-colored people and anti-feminism"
The only one he gets almost right is anti-abortion which I would argue is actually different than being pro-life which is what SC's are. Again, it's too deep to get into here.
Social conservatives ABSOLUTELY are not anti-separation of church and state. In fact, I think separation of church and state is crucial. However, we don't generally believe that mentioning religion in a generic sense as it relates to our nations history should be off limits. SC's are absolutely not anti-homosexual, nor were they ever anti-colored people nor anti feminism. His characterizations are completely false and misguided by inaccurate stereotypes. Unfortunately, these are ideas that are held by many undereducated (generally younger) individuals who don't really understand the views of those they disagree with, and are perfectly prepared to disparage anyone they think might disagree with them.
To say a TRUE social conservative is "anti-gay", or "anti-feminism" is no different than saying a liberal is "anti-rich" or "anti-business". It's simply a gross misrepresentation of the actuality of the situation.
For the record, TRUE social conservatives believe in equal rights protected by the constitution, for EVERYONE, gay or straight, or unborn. We support the institution of civil unions as a means to equal rights for gays and as a way of strengthening non-traditional families while not redefining traditional marriage. Lifelong commitment as a means of strengthening the family is important and should be promoted. Whether the family heads are gay or straight is of less concern. We believe in sexual responsibility as a means of decreasing the potential for abortion and that abortion as a form of birth control is wrong and can damage us as individuals and a society. We also believe that a "right" to abortion is not granted by the federal constitution and that any regulation/promotion of it should be on a state by state level.
"Also I support 2nd amendment [cons.] even though 1st amendment is more important [lib.]”
No, support for the 1st amendment is not a liberal issue. Social conservatives support the first amendment just as vehemently as the second amendment. Neither amendment is “more important”.
The 2nd amendment was written as a means to ensure the ability to protect the first, among other things. What good is the first amendment, or ANY amendment/right/freedom if the government can take it away and we as a society have no power to take it back?
I’d love to discuss my views further but this probably not the proper venue so I’ll cut it “short” here. Again, thanking people for their input and opinion, particularly when it’s not interspersed with derision.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
This just in relating to copyright infringement:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=ae997868-220b-4dae-bf4f-47f6fc96ce5e
That kind of law has to be something like an RIAA/MPAA wet dream.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“an agreement to revamp international copyright laws which could make the information on Canadian iPods, laptop computers or other personal electronic devices illegal”
Son of a…..
I thought Canada was more progressive in this regard. Don’t they have a stance that if a song has played on public radio, it’s now in public domain and not protected from being “shared”?
May 29th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
No, they don’t, but there is an exception for small-scale sharing like friends and family.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Well, I would settle for that.
This is the ruling I was thinking about.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html
Basically the judge said that placing a file in a shared folder does not equate to “distribution” of copyrighted works and therefore no infringement takes place.
Perhaps this has been overturned, or new legislation has been passed. I’m not sure.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
O_RLY.jpg
Maybe to YOU and your subjective definition of “TRUE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE,” it may appear homophobia, segregation, and xenophobia [nowadays against people of brown skin] are incompatible. That’s fine. But don’t assume you can speak out for an entire group just because you claim to be part of the group. Likewise, don’t assume I am an uneducated young stud from San Fran looking to Change the World.
It’s okay to distance yourself from opponents against gay marriage and people paranoid against brown people, and to define for yourself what social conservatism means to you, but you can’t convince anyone that The Accepted Definition of that term is necessarily yours, and that mine is so wrong it proves I am an uneducated hippie, when many if not most people use that term to mean similar things to what I mean.
And for the record, the 2nd amendment is an antique relic of the past that is far less important than the 1st, in today’s modernized, nationalistic, assimilationist society. Its original intent was to protect the individual against govt abuses; that is no longer the case, the govt wont send soldiers to your home. I only support it because I support certain libertarianism and individual rights and small govt [a principle], and because taking away guns doesn’t address crime or violence problems [practical].
May 29th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
“But don’t assume you can speak out for an entire group”
You’re right, you’re definitely better qualified to tell me what people like me think. My apologies.
“don’t assume I am an uneducated young stud”
I don’t assume anything, but much can be gleaned from your the words you write.
“you can’t convince anyone that The Accepted Definition of that term is necessarily yours”
Look at the link to wikipedia above. I’m not alone in my thinking on this.
“and that mine is so wrong it proves I am an uneducated hippie”
Well, if nothing else, it certainly proves you’re undereducated with regard to social conservatives and where we stand on the issues. But, to be fair, if you truly live in SF, I’m guessing you haven’t actually met very many.
Keep in mind, I am one. You’re not. I know where I stand on the issues and I don’t hide my views. I have nothing to be ashamed of and I’m not alone. There are a lot of us out there and many have blogs and podcasts just like this one. I’m an active participant in multiple communities, both local and online and I can assure you, I’m not unique. It’s not a mystery and no one is hiding.
“And for the record, the 2nd amendment is an antique relic of the past that is far less important than the 1st”
To this, I can only say, fine, let them take away the antique relics such as the second amendment. Then just wait and see how long the first amendment lasts. I’m glad you trust the government to take care of you and to protect your rights forever. Personally, I do not.
“the govt wont send soldiers to your home”
Oh really? I’m afraid your education (or lack thereof) is beginning to show again. I suggest you do some research. In fact, the government is taking far more liberties when it comes to “sending soldiers into peoples homes” and searches and seizures than it has in decades. I’m not an alarmist, but I certainly believe in being prepared.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
paz,
“Social conservatives” aren’t necessarily a monolithic group with identical political beliefs.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
1. Note that I said “my definition of social conservatives may be different from yours” and I left the field open for other interpretations such as cisco. I was suggesting there could be different personal definitions of what that meant, and I specifically defined what I - in my opinion - believed it meant. I have no problem with cisco’s definition, I simply disagree, and that’s all there is to it.
But then cisco basically said “No, your definition is so wrong, it proves you are uneducated liberal hippy. Oh and btw, like all or most liberals, you are so stubborn and can’t take other people’s opinions and are so narrowminded.” That is basicaly the impression I received.
As for the 2nd am. thing…well goodness. The reason the amendment was created was because King George III abused his power among the 13 colonies, and back then, Revolutionary War required citizens with their own arms. That is what I meant; are you saying there will come a time where the US citizens will have a need to stage a revolution against the US govt with their arms? Of course, not. The Civil War and the Saving of the Union showed conclusively, once and for all: none of the states shall ever secede, there will be no fragmentation, we are all one, we are all united, the federal govt is more powerful than the state govt. Therefore, after the Civil War, there was no longer ANY chance of American vs. American Govt conflict through arms.
Jesus. 38 posts. Jeffy, is this a record?
I have contributed! heheheh
May 29th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
ooooooooooooo maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnn
from Bushnell’s anti-piracy pipe-dream chip
=>
games DRM
=>
music DRM
=>
sharing/stealing music
=>
protecting private property vs. corporation asshatery
=>
meaning of social conservatism
=>
liberals alleged naivete
=>
2nd ammendment
=>
US history crash course
I HAAAAAAVE LIIIIIVVVED
May 29th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Alright… Cutting this off here… I don’t want this to become a main focus of this site, so… if you have more, well, wait for another tangentially related topic to post in and expand into a political debate. =)
May 30th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Thanks jeff. Will do. And Rob, you’re spot on.