CEA smacks down "thinly veiled attack" by RIAA on fair use

Sounds like consumers (and random people in toxic waste suits) aren't the only ones getting tired of the RIAA's antics. Consumer Electronics Association chief Gary Shapiro had some harsh words for the music industry the other day. He's particularly miffed at the RIAA's wild and fairly unrealistic expectations for an audio broadcast flag. Not only did they start pushing for the spec rather late in the digital radio game, potentially making current investments by broadcasters worthless, but they're not offering any help on the actual spec itself. "In short," says Gary, "the RIAA wants to stop consumers from doing what they've been doing since a tape recorder was first used to capture a song played over the air for private use." Shapiro says the CEA is plenty willing to play the DRM game, and limit "the mass indiscriminate redistribution of music over the Internet," but he says "The game of crying wolf [over piracy] is not only tiresome; it's harmful to consumers and innovation." We couldn't have put it better ourselves.

[Via Ars Technica]

[andrew @ Aug 11th 2006 11:02AM]

if you do not like DRM buy from other than Itunes there are other options.

[Bjorn Olsson @ Aug 11th 2006 11:22AM]

Could not agree more. With all the huge issues the world is facing these people's main concern is DRM and the "right" to file-share copyrighted material???

[Warhorse @ Aug 11th 2006 11:26AM]

They have a point. This precedent was set with the invention of the tape recorder. What do they expect after training the consumer that copying music was ok.

[Long Island Guy @ Aug 11th 2006 11:36AM]

I think it might actually be kind of fun to go through the RIAA lawyers house and see what "illegal" recordings we might find.

[Mchacur @ Aug 11th 2006 11:37AM]

I wonder why these guys complain against Steve Jobs instead of complaining against Edgar Bronfman Jr. and other greedy executives of the music industry. At least Steve has forced them to keep prices at 99c

[Finished.Law.School @ Aug 11th 2006 11:37AM]

Considering the RIAA sues dead people (among other actions that defy logic and reason) why should anyone expect anything reasonable, sensible, logical, understandable and/or economically feasible coming from the RIAA?

[Alex @ Aug 11th 2006 11:43AM]

There are two sides to this. I mean, on one hand, I'd love to be able to do what I want with the music I purchase. But on the other hand, just because you bought a Stix cassette tape 15 years ago doesn't mean that the record company is entitled to give you a Stix CD when CDs came out, you know?

[Catdogburger @ Aug 11th 2006 11:46AM]

O well...at least somebody said something about the DRM ;)

[Ed @ Aug 11th 2006 11:48AM]

Who is Steve Job?

[JeffS @ Aug 11th 2006 11:49AM]

(Re: andrew) This isn't about not liking DRM restrictions on iTunes. It's about being able to videotape TV shows that you'd otherwise miss, the ability to use TiVo. All of these items currently taken for granted that would seem absurd to abolish. But if you read the RIAA's wording, that's exactly what they want. It's all politics, and in the meantime, all they're doing is harassing technology companies, making it impossible for gadget companies to innovate in a timely manner. It's the same game that the FCC plays.

[Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Aug 11th 2006 11:51AM]

As if "PlaysForSure" tracks could be played on every mp3 player.

I do not understand people who attack Jobs and Apple's iTMS.

Guys, M$ DRM is in no way better. It is worse. Trust me and all other on net who tried to use subscription services.

By attacking Jobs personally and Apple particularly you play right into hand of Microsoft. If M$ would dominate DRM market and DRM would be mandated - then say goodbye to choice of OS today we have - Linux/BSD/Mac OS X/etc - welcome Wind0ze with its worms/malware/spyware/IE/WMP and other hazards.

People need to realize, though Apple right now is on top of the market, number two interested player - Microsoft - would give (and actually gives right now) much much less choices compared to Apple. After winning over Apple, Microsoft would be much less inclined to improve customer experience.

If to fight for something - then it is to open up and document any DRM schemes used in anything sold to consumers - regardless of vendor, regardless of copyright holder.

[Will @ Aug 11th 2006 11:54AM]

Why do all of these demonstrators look like Linux nerds? Afaik iTunes
isn't even available for their system.

[TriZz @ Aug 11th 2006 12:10PM]

They're not making a hit against Steve Jobs - The sign says "If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own."

I don't see anything wrong with that statement. I sounds like a fair deal to me.

[CJ @ Aug 11th 2006 12:13PM]

I must admit (and maybe it's because I'm overly tired) that I understand the difference between the "tape recorder precedent" and today's digital broadcasts. But you can't seriously do what RIAA wants and expect consumers to play along. More importantly, industry is not going to come quietly either. Too much money has been invested in digital broadcast tech already.

And the theme of the picture is the attack against DRM. Steve's quote is the ideal (even though iTunes goes the other way, but that's not the point). The protesters are using the quote in a positive way, y'all. They like the quote. They're not attacking Jobs or iTunes directly.

[Andrew @ Aug 11th 2006 12:16PM]

Do they really think Steve Jobs was the one that was insistant on using DRM for the iTunes Music Store? If so, they clearly haven't done thier research. When Steve Jobs announced the iTunes Music Store he wasn't too pleased when he said it had DRM. A more reasonable target would be record compays execs and the RIAA.

[Steve @ Aug 11th 2006 12:20PM]

Itunes really is a fair DRM vs. other sources available. Don't like the fact that if you purchase your music from ITMS and then have to burn it to CD and re-import it with NO DRM on it... buy the actual CD and see if IT has DRM on it.... anyone remember the Sony rootkit??

come on people.. this isn't hard... it's just called LAZY in the USA.

[Mchacur @ Aug 11th 2006 12:21PM]

Sorry TriZz and CJ, but I have to disagree with you.

Have you noticed they are using visual elements of the iPod campaign?

IMHO, they are quoting Steve Jobs in a cynical way.

BTW, I couldn't care less about Steve Jobs, it's just my understanding of the protest...

[nullsmack @ Aug 11th 2006 12:21PM]

TriZz, the drm in itunes limits you to using only apple ipod hardware, making steve jobs into a hypocrite.

[dave @ Aug 11th 2006 12:35PM]

You people crying about iTunes DRM have obviously not invested the 10 minutes or so it takes to research how to convert an iTunes file into a non-DRM MP3.

I will use my purchased music privately on any device I wish (and legally, I might add), and iTunes is a great way for me to purchase my music. I run a simple conversion using easily found software, and voila. It's usable on any device I want. I refuse to be one of those smacktards who will turn around and share the music on a peer network, because that is thievery, which is the one point I agree on with the RIAA.

[moosegolfr @ Aug 11th 2006 1:08PM]

If your going to quote someone, I think they should at least get his name right.

"Steve Job"

That doesn't do much for an educated arguement.

[David @ Aug 11th 2006 1:10PM]

All this crap is making me want to STOP buying my music legally, is that really what the RIAA wants? haha

They aren't stopping pirates, and now all they're doing is alienating the customers they have left, stupid if you ask me...

[frilledren @ Aug 11th 2006 1:30PM]

iTMS music downloads couldn't be easier, and they are really fair- if you don't like having the DRM AAC, you can change it into anything you want via the simple process of putting it on a CDR(W)- that is pretty much in line with the Jobs quote. Sure it might be inconvenient, but it is a lot easier, faster, and typically cheaper than heading down to the cd store to find out they have everything but the album you wanted.
The fact that thee video downloads can't be de-DRMed sucks though. Even though I'd like to see DRM restrictions decreased, between the HAZMAT suits and the overly whiny imagery of someone being tied up with an ipod, is more annoying than inspiring. Go after CSS for christ's sake.

[The Grand Master @ Aug 11th 2006 1:34PM]

The quote on the sheet looks to me like an attack on the record company. Think about it, the biggest music store controller said you should be able to use your music whatever way you want, the DRM restrictions are set by the RIAA not Apple. So if the head of Apple wants choice why are the RIAA ignoring him?

Oh and there are some things that really make using iTunes a better idea than the playsfor(notso)sure crowd. First of all any songs you but from the music store can be put into a playlist and that list can be burnt 7 times, so afterwards you just delete it and make the same one again. Also if you create a backup of the music it can be loaded onto a different computer, or the same one later incase of drive failure. Lot's of people have complained that any PFS music is extremely hard to get back onto your PC and I don't know how many times you're allowed to burn it in the first place!

Anyway by far the best place to buy music from is allofmp3.com they allow you to choose the bitrate and format of your tracks and it's dirt cheap too.

[Dimitri @ Aug 11th 2006 2:37PM]

Apple's DRM is NOT fair. Here's why:

Apple limits you to ONLY THREE authorized computers... EVER.

What does this mean? Simple:

When you replace your laptop, STRIKE 1.
When your desktop finally crashes, STRIKE 2.
When you upgrade your hard drive: STRIKE 3.

Suddenly, all your paid music will no longer work... ever (even if it's backed up!) iTunes will REFUSE to authorize your music.

Can you imagine buying a CD at the store, and having it stop working, all because you replaced your broken CD player?

THAT, my friends, is what DRM is. And THAT is why it sucks.

Dimitri

[I,Robot @ Aug 11th 2006 2:42PM]

@Steve

What the HELL? LAZY in the USA? Laziness has NOTHING to do with it? You lose music quality when you take a DRM ridden 128-bitrate music file, (from who ever music store), burn it to a CD. Then re-rip it back into digital music at 256-bitrate. Duh.

It’s amazing!?!? The RIAA make the LARGEST share of money OVER the artists and musicians that actually create the music, and yet they are ALWAYS the first ones bitching and changing government regulations to suit themselves. Then they wonder why we’re buying music from the Russians?

If anyone should be bitching it’s the musicians, the CD manufactures, and then the consumer. The record labels should be the last ones in line.

[Steve @ Aug 11th 2006 2:56PM]

"Apple limits you to ONLY THREE authorized computers... EVER"

Wrong... It's 5 machines, not including iPods. And SHOULD you ever max that out on the 6th machine and forget/crash/sell an old machine that has not been UN-authorized, Apple does have a built in trigger you can pull once every 12 months to deauth those machines.

"You lose music quality when you take a DRM ridden 128-bitrate music file"

Yes.. you sure do... IF I was an audiophile freak like some... I'd still be listening to LPs, not digital. You lose more of the sound spectrum with digital files in general. This discussion is NOT about quality, it's about DRM. So you can convert from 128 to 128 with very (and I mean VERY) little quality loss. Want really high quality, digitally limited, hard drive bloating files, encode physical media bought from the store at 256.

[Torontoguy @ Aug 11th 2006 3:20PM]

Mr. Shapiro says: "...the RIAA wants to stop consumers from doing what they've been doing since a tape recorder was first used to capture a song played over the air for private use."
Unfortunately this is B.S. What is meant to be stopped is not making a single backup copy for personal use but they want to stop people from offering tens of thousands of copies to without any payments to the actual owners of the material.
People seem to think that it is the copyright holders who are, in some way, the 'bad guys' and so they direct all of the anger at the Music industry. When in fact it is the pirates and 'file sharers' who are the actual problem.
This is like blaming the airlines because you can't bring your bottle of GatorAde on the airplane anymore. Don't blame the airlines. Blame the crud who planned to make a bomb by smuggling liquid components and so have now inconvenienced YOU.
Those who chafe under the restrictions of DRM shouldn't be blaming the record companies but they should be blaming their buddy who has 25,000 pirated tracks on his iPod. HE is responsible for the restrictions that YOU have to live with.

[Dimitri @ Aug 11th 2006 3:41PM]

Steve,
You're correct: it is 5 computers, not 3. And you can reset/de-authorize your computers only once a year.

Hmmm... ok...

Then suppose you forget your login password (heaven forbid), and you've changed your email address...
...since your login is dependant upon your email address, if you can't recover your password, you can't authorize your music.

Or, is there reset switch for that too?

Dimitri

[Sally @ Aug 11th 2006 3:56PM]

My opinion is that once you buy a song it is yours and you can do what you want with it as long as you don't sell it or use it commercially.

[Yan @ Aug 11th 2006 4:16PM]

Here's my take on "fair" DRM, if there was ever such a thing. The record company need to take a stance and say that they own the content, not the media, and they are licensing it to you. Ok, fair enough, then that means I can take that license for the media (say a song) get that song in any format that is currently available, whether it be on CD, MP3, AAC etc, without having to pay multiple times for it. Another words, I pay for their product ONE TIME and ONE TIME ONLY. This also means I should not be restricted in quality/usage/number of copies I make AS LONG AS I am not freely distributing it online. I from then on out should only need to pay if I want a newer format IN PHYSICAL FORM cuz you know... I could pay the 10 cents for their bandwidth costs to download it but that would be just a formality at that point. Then and only then will I see DRM as a fair tool. Wait... you know what... this sounds strangely familiar circa 2000, when *gosh* there was no DRM. Imagine that?

[zachary @ Aug 11th 2006 4:24PM]

anyone find jobs's quote just a bit hypocritical?
lol drm is hopeless

[Chris @ Aug 11th 2006 5:49PM]

Hear! Hear!

The RIAA is a bunch of politically-connected underhanded group of greedmongers. The protection that the RIAA vocalizes rarely makes it back to the original recording artist while these chumps line their pockets with luxuries. They suck!

[bliss @ Aug 11th 2006 7:14PM]

did halloween come early this year? where can I get one of those cool suits...

[Perrey Z. @ Aug 11th 2006 7:26PM]

Why are these people wearing biohazard suits? What does that have to do with protesting against DMR and the RIAA???

And staying on the same subject of Wacky Weirdos, what's up with the guy holding the White sign? he looks like he's trying to swallow a pooch.

[Tull @ Aug 11th 2006 8:18PM]

I never realized it until reading all of these posts, but I guess people actually got suckered into buying music. I can see no reason to waste my money on things that are readily available for free. I don't have to deal with all this DRM nonsense and if i ever get indicted for stealing music, then I guess I deserved it. Limewire for single files and Bittorrent for discographys (they're usually encoded at 320 kbps =D), it's that easy.

[Dimitri @ Aug 11th 2006 9:05PM]

Tull, while I don't advocate stealing music, you do (in spite of yourself) raise a good point: P2P.

It's all too easy to get the music for free, DRM-free. Until there is a good, legal, and DRM-free alternative to P2P, many people will download the music for free.

Why can't the major labels understand that? Many of the smaller labels are willing to sell their catalogs as MP3s. Why not the big labels?

Besides, DRM is inherently flawed:

In order for DRM to work, the decryption key (to unlock the music) needs to be sent to the user's system.

LOL! All that DRM does is try to HIDE the key from plain view. That's ALL. It's like trying to stop a burglar from robbing your house, by putting the key under your doormat.

DRM is inherently flawed.

Dimitri

[hrf3420 @ Aug 11th 2006 9:40PM]

I can't believe that the RIAA is serious about all this digital Rights stuff. Even if they go through with it, it's just going to be hacked, some program to decrypt them will come out, and it'll die out just like the UMD disc did. (well the umd hasn't died yet but....)

[eric @ Aug 12th 2006 12:53AM]

Really...can't these protestors find any other pressing issue to get pissed about? Unbelievable.

[Others @ Aug 12th 2006 1:15AM]

Steve, I encoded a language teaching CD into mp3 format and ogg format to see which is better. I'm no audiophile, but after hearing the two, I really mp3 sucked when compare to ogg with same bitrate. So my point is that you might not be an audiophile, but the reason you don't think the music you're listening to is that bad is because you never heard anything better, when it is. Your argument is pointless, you act like just because you're not an audiophile means that it's great that we can remove drm by burning onto a cd and encode it back. That's stupid, why pay for the extra quality loss? Yeah, it is easy to remove the drm restrictions, it's even easier to have a drm free mp3 file that sounds like crap and replace your drm file with it instead. How does that sound?(pun intended) You probably can't hear most of the instruments on the background anymore. Maybe you listen to heavy metal where it doesn't even matter, but no one gives a damn about what you listen to.

[J. Calhoun @ Aug 12th 2006 1:45AM]

"Then suppose you forget your login password (heaven forbid), and you've changed your email address...
...since your login is dependant upon your email address, if you can't recover your password, you can't authorize your music."

Well, what if you forget your PlaysForSure login and change your email address right before all of your subscribed music expires? Or what if you forget your computer's login altogether?

The argument you've presented is not specific to iTunes as all DRM schemes have some form of controlled access associated with them.

I agree that DRM does place certain limits on its customers, and some would see this as bad for consumers. However, none of the points you've presented specifically against iTunes provide particularly damning evidence against its use.

[manpan @ Aug 12th 2006 3:56AM]

I agree with I,Robot it is wrong for the record companies to make more money from music sales than the artists who created the music and impose DRM restrictions on the consumer.

Still I think Apple's FairPlay DRM is better only because it is the only major rival DRM format to Microsoft's DRM system that runs on more than 1 platform. Were Microsoft's Plays for sure system to succeed over iPod + iTunes everyone would be locked into Windows. Microsoft chooses to make its services and media related products Windows compatible only. They are currently creating the illusion of being more open than Apple's system but were Apple to lose say goodbye to more OS choice beyond Windows. That would be had for consumers.

We'll all be stuck with viruses, spyware, Windows flaws (holes or security problems), after all Windows is still an insecure unstable system -- XP might be more secure than previous releases but still if you compare any version of Windows to Mac OS X and similar operating systems then Windows is not very stable, reliable or secure at all. Steve Jobs as another user commented earlier said he did not want DRM in iTunes Music Store but ended up adding it because it was a requirement of RIAA apparently -- or something to that effect. So its not that they want to restrict your choice but RIAA possibly wouldn't have agreed to offer music otherwise on iTunes.

As for me when I get my music there are 2 suggestions I have discovered. 1) continue downloading off p2p networks in which the alleged legality might be in question -- people sharing files on there could be accused by RIAA of piracy but at same time sending artist a buck, 2) if you have to pay for the music try finding third party releases of specific music soundtracks.

Recently I bought on audio CD "STAR WARS A Musical Tribute performed by The Filmscore Orchestra" which was manufactured by a company called Legacy Entertainment in Canada -- that way I got my favorite Star Wars music legally but refused to buy it from a RIAA label member.

I use the RIAA Radar service to find alternative forms to get my favorite music -- rather than buying the official soundtrack for Star Wars by 20th Century Fox Records or another RIAA member that was given rights to distribute Star Wars music I bought my Star Wars music from an independent label.

So now I am attempting to boycott RIAA in future -- don't buy any more music from any RIAA company on audio CD, DVD etc or services like iTunes. Either I get music from an independent label or download it off p2p for free and probably send a buck if I can to the artist.

[I,Robot @ Aug 12th 2006 4:04AM]

Look “Steve”, if you want to have crappy sounding music files with NO bass, at a dollar a throw that is YOUR choice. I simply answered your question, to why must people on the blog doesn’t WANT to burn their music to CD.

And yes, I will keep my bloated encode files thank you, because personally, it’s just a waste of a CD. I mean really, what's the point? So it can sit around collecting dust? While I’m walking from the house, bus, car with my iPod. Whatever. So, please, keep your little DRM in crusted music. While the rest of us have Large, backed-up hard drives dedicated to music files. And can “FREELY” transfer them from one place, to another -- just in case of a crash. Which I do believe, was the POINT of this article?

[I,Robot @ Aug 12th 2006 5:08AM]

@Torontoguy
I remember having this same conversation with you during the last engadget DRM argument. I will NEVER understand why you are on the side of the RIAA? You are GIVING your rights away, without even knowing what they are? And that’s foolish. (I totally believe that you are working for the music industry in some fashion – but I digress)

So your overall point is, that it’s OK for the RIAA to completely screw over their customers and treat us of all like criminals, just because 1 person in 50 is a complete ass_ole pirating music, and making money from it. Ok fair enough, but here’s the thing…

That’s NOT our fault, and it’s NOT OUR PROBLEM!!!! That’s would be the RIAA’s problem. Just like it’s the problem of MPAA, when some guy down the street, is selling “Batman Begins” out of the back of his car. I’m buying a CD to listen to music, let’s say Madonna. What I am NOT buying is a SECOND JOB policing the f_cking music industries' bank accounts.

And I do blame the record companies… Why, because when they go running to the federal government like little bitches, to change the laws of the entire country just to benefit themselves. Or when they haul grandmothers and 13 year old girls into court for money, all the while paying the actual musicians 10 cent’s per CD sold. So please, don’t give me that sob-story about felling sorry for the Music Industry, because they pass asshole years ago, and moved straight to douche bag.

I don’t and WON’T live with the restrictions placed upon me because of someone else’s actions. And neither should you? That’s ridiculous and completely stupid!! If YOU committed murder – I sure as hell wouldn’t expect to goto jail in YOUR PLACE! Why should this situation be any different? Answer: it shouldn’t

Laws are put in place govern a large body of people, and laws change in order to IMPROVE the quality of LIFE for THE PEOPLE!!! No one group should be able to change the laws, just because it doesn’t suit their bank account.

It’s says, “We the people… Not, “We the corporation…

[John @ Aug 13th 2006 5:44AM]

@TorontoGuy

Even with DRM, people will still continue to download music for free. DRM only serves to restrict those that actually buy music. Those that download music/movies illegally will STILL DO SO in the future, you can count on it, just as you can count on continued terrorist attempts, despite how much people try to stop it.

There's a point where you have to ask whether or not what your doing is preserving freedom, or just taking it all away.

[doy @ Aug 13th 2006 12:06PM]

I attempted to use "playsforsure" DRM music on my Pocket PC. However, the songs would not play and I got an error that the PPC was attempting to download the license, or some such bull. Turns out the songs had to be played once on a PC that was connected to the internet (to acquire the licenses), then transferred via ActiveSync (read: SLOW), to my Pocket PC. This was a painfully slow and inconvenient process. Even after the songs were on my Pocket PC, I found that they (for reasons still unknown to me) would not remain licensed or playable there. I am somewhat of Pocket PC fanboy/geek and I eventually gave up. I want to buy my music and listen to it. I don't have the time, patience or desire to F around converting, acquiring, authorizing, re-authorizing, etc., music! I found allofmp3.com and have loved it. This brings me to my next point.

The solution:
Scrap DRM. Charge less until the tipping point is reached. By tipping point, I am referring to the price at which everyone (or very nearly everyone) is willing to just buy the songs. People, for the most part, want to be fair and honest, but not if it means getting reamed on price or convenience. I bet everyone on this forum--including the fans of allofmp3, limewire, bittorrent, etc.--would gladly pay some price, somewhere between maybe 10 and 75 cents, for legal unrestricted MP3, or the like, music files. Am I wrong? An unrestricted music industry at the right price point would be unstoppable and the overall receipts would more than offset the aggressive pricing.

The only losers in this would be the RIAA as they would have nothing to sue over. The RIAA is the problem, not the consumers (no matter where they get music from).

[Jake @ Aug 13th 2006 8:15PM]

Honestly, the RIAA should just give up. It's not worth trying to control piracy. Besides, you can't put a price on art. A CD is just a convenient way to hold the music. The music itself shouldn't cost money.

[Dimitri @ Aug 14th 2006 2:31AM]

"...music itself shouldn't cost money."

And just how do propose that musicians earn a living, in your utopian society, if their music "shouldn't cost money"?

Jake, did you ride the special bus to school?