Man, these Copyright Office triennial DMCA hearings seem to be some kind of competition for media-industry lawyers to present ridiculous arguments -- just a couple months after the MPAA tried to convince us that
videotaping DVDs was an acceptable alternative to ripping, the RIAA's claiming that consumers shouldn't expect their DRM servers to stay online and allow them to play their music to play forever. No joke. The argument comes as the Copyright Office decides whether or not to allow a DMCA exemption for breaking DRM, and RIAA lawyer Steven Metalitz's position is that copyright owners shouldn't be required to "provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works," since "no other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards." Of course, that's only partially true, since properly maintained physical media and DRM-free content theoretically can be played forever, but why acknowledge reality when you can jack up your legal bills making completely absurd arguments that make your porcine, slowly-decaying clients seem even more doomed than before?
posted Jul 30th 2009 5:44PM
Holy hell. This is really a game of "how low can you go?" I think I'll stick to buying vinyl for the sweet cover art and then just grabbing the tracks online somewhere.
You are still supporting the RIAA, hope you know.
Eh, probably not with the shit I listen to.
RIAA ... Here is my Ass .. {(*)} ..... EAT IT !!!!! .. Yo Kobe Tell me how my ass taste !
"Eh, probably not with the shit I listen to."
Well done, sir. I don't see how this has continued to be an issue with the advent of the Amazon MP3 store. DRM-free digital content is what the public has craved since 1998, and now that it's here, people are still buying and bitching about DRM-wrapped content.
- electioneer space -
you get what you vote !
Support Pirate Party = Kill drm
- electioneer space -
RIAA CAN SUCK IT!! I'd say they can burn in hell, but they apparently already own the place!
On the other hand your pirated music WILL last forever. Thanks, RIAA, I think I'll follow your advice. Asses.
I'm too picky to p2p music. I like it in high quality formats. 128-129 kbps isn't enough for me lol.
Then get an invite to oink or some other private tracker and you can roll in the beautiful lossless music.
Flo, http://thepiratebay.org/browse/104
@ flo
you are referring to streaming right?? b/c that's what most are, there are lots 128k,192k rips but there are also tons 320k, loseless rips as well.. get your fact straight nub
is oink still alive?
never did get an invite...
as to the story... i havent dl any music in a long time. i think i'll grab a lossless album just to finger it at RIAA for this line of bs!
@Flo:
Most of my P2P music is 320 Kbps. It isn't too hard to find FLAC and lossless formats either.
@flo: Welcome to 2009, where private P2P trackers have better quality encodes than any of the paid offerings. Which tracker, you ask?
The first rule of [the best private P2P tracker] is you don't talk about [the best private P2P tracker].
The second rule of [the best private P2P tracker] is YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT [the best private P2P tracker].
Last I saw oink got shut down by interpol, unless it's back up somehow? But torrents are the way to go, I don't think anyone even bothers putting up less 192. Its either VBR or 320kbps.
i can't hear the difference anyway, bring on the 128k!
lol oink's been dead a long time now, but of course there's like a bazillion other music trackers.
This is why I buy my own cds also. I rip them to flac/ogg/mp3/ whatever i want.
the difference is when you buy a cd they get more rich and you more poor.
Good stuff - Magellwhatever: The record fatcats may get rich but without buying CDs the people who make the music can't afford to distribute & support their product.
Any band that's part of a record company that's part of the RIAA is probably already getting screwed over.
@ LordPaul
Do you know that most artist not only distribute their music through direct sale and they also bringing it to Hollywood and through other advertisement company that uses their music. So no-one lose in this fight expect the starving artist who don't know how to think further than just direct sale.
this is why the RIAA also hates used record shops, libraries, and friends.
... or you can buy from independent/local artists and get their cds at a show or direct from their website. Support small struggling artists and get it direct from the source.
Also, back when Radiohead released in rainbows for a 25 cent service charge and whatever else you wanted to give them (or nothing), I looked into how much artists actually made per cd. The MOST they will get (and this is the major acts, because they can negotiate for more) is about 25 cents. So basically artists would do better if you downloaded their music from p2p and then sent them a quarter than they would do from the majestic beneficence of the music industry.
and those fat cats get all indignant about "thievery".
Or you can do like Saturday Lo-fi and put your albums free on torrent site. Cant wait for the next album.
I get the feeling that the devil reference in the story's image is the best we can do. No symbolic reference at our disposal can properly describe the beast of the RIAA.
Johnny 5?
I see you've seen my movies.
The devil is a least honest. He won't piss on me and tell me its raining.
Are they actually TRYING to lose customers?
Why is the comment system still using my old name?
They know their only competition is people DLing music, which just proves their point when they go whining to the government.
They know their only competition is people DLing music, which just proves their point when they go whining to the government.
This doublepost brought to you by a spastic doubleclick, NOT by a broken commenting system!
Meh, it is half the Comment system's fault imo.
There should be a flood protector.
Tomorrow's headline:
"Consumers say RIAA shouldn't expect to last forever"
Best comment I've read today!
hahahaha!
@ash chapman: I agree. This is on par with Google "removing Apple search results" because they duplicate existing features...
awesome.
This is outrageous. I also expect turntable and 8-track player manufacturers to keep on making devices forever so i can keep on playing my 45's and my 8-tracks. I'm still pissed that computer manufacturers no longer include 5.25 floppy drives because i want ot keep on using the floppies that I have forever.
You aren't actually comparing outdated physical equipment to the arbitrarily-expiring shackles of software driven DRM... are you?
Reading comprehension check: it's not illegal to convert those to a modern format with a USB turntable or any such hardware. RIAA wants it to be illegal to convert the DRM'd files to make them still work. Your analogy=fail.
@ ash chapman
I'm merely trying to point out that the bigger issue here isn't music or DRM, it's legacy. It's an issue that we will have to face on many fronts due to the information explosion (thin binary data rahter than music tracks, word docs etc.)
How long should a hospital keep medical records? How about your physician's or dentist's office? Should that data be kept for a certain number of years? If so how many? With MRI's there is a tremendous amount of data generated with each series. what about all the articles in all the scientific journals.
Yes storage media has increased dramatically over the years. I remember my first computer in 1993 had a 420 MB hard drive and I had a friend who went all out and got a 1 GB. Here we are and that is laughable. The microSD in my BB holds way more than that. But, despite how quickly our capacity to store data has grown, our data storage needs have increased to match the capability.
This all reminds me of "pay as you go" pension plans and the problems they encounter with an ageing population. The legacy burden will become problematic.
Simon, if they dont want the burden of keeping legacy drm servers around, then maybe they shouldnt timebomb the media I paid them for.
Eliminate the drm. Problem solved.
I also expect turntable and 8-track player manufacturers to include self destruct chips in them so that the recording companies can press a button to destroy your music collection at any time then force you to buy everything again as cassettes. You didn't think you *owned* that 8track did you? You're simply given permission to listen to it for an undetermined period of time before you're forced to buy it again.
Those 5.25" floppies aren't yours either. It's naive to think you could possibly *own* something you paid for, as soon as the companies that made those floppies decide, you should expect to have your door broken down and the floppies taken from you.
Those old books on your shelf? They should turn to dust as soon as the printing press that made them is destroyed. Also, it's illegal to try and read the dust. This is how media should be sold. No products are held to such lofty standards.
If you do not see the irony in what you said, then I'm not sure if there's any help for you. In this instance, think of the DRM on Blu Ray discs. It doesn't require servers, but thanks to the DMCA, which was pretty much paid for by the RIAA, for the rest of time if you want to play those Blu Ray discs, you will have to own a working Blu Ray player - unless you break the law. Here, they're going even a step further and saying that they can pull the plug on their servers (get rid of all the Blu Ray players, to analogize) at any time and that consumers should 'expect' it.
Legacy hardware is an issue for consumers that is completely in their hands. When hardware gets old, you migrate the data to newer hardware, and if you don't then it's on your own head. But their argument is that they should be able to prevent you from migrating that data and just have you buy it again. Don't drink the kool aid.
You're dumb. A broken player is one thing, the RIAA taking it away is another. I DON'T expect manufacturers to keep manufacturing turntables. If mine breaks, though luck. I still have my music, it's just up to me to find a player. The problem here is that I still have my player. Manufacturers are still (and will be) making computers that can play my files - but I can't play them because I can't connect to some damn server in the middle of Tibet. The player is there, the music is there, but I can't play what I paid for because some douche in the RIAA took it away from me.
So what the hell does that mean? Yet another way of us paying for sh*t we already own AGAIN? RIAA -- We don't need you, no one does. Please die.