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 July 30th 2009 5:44PM
DRM-free, CDs with lossless audio and their own backup disc, FTW!
I think the legal position should be pretty obvious really, they should be legally forced to last as long as the copyright lasts. 70years or whatever. The don't need to be perpetual, just until the subject becomes public domain...anyway Art is free, and once its left someones mind, belongs to everyone.
IP, patents, and copyright, are all fundamentally about money.
I quit buying music when they cracked down on Napster over a decade ago. In the months previous, Napster had exposed me to hundreds of new artists and I'd purchased a large number of CDs. Indeed, statistics showed CD sales were through the roof during Napster's reign.
Then they started treating us, their best customers, like criminals. So I decided, "Frack it." I haven't bought a single CD since and I never will, ever again, with the exception of indie artists. Do I still listen to RIAA music? Yeah, I just don't pay for it. At all. And I don't feel an ounce of bad, either.
If only the people at the RIAA could pay attention to what you just said.
And the min that drm server stops working = lawsuit
Probably covered in the EULA
i like pie key lime pie is my fav
Wow! Seems like the RIAA likes to argue so much that it developed multiple personalities and is now arguing against its own agenda!
Don't buy music from record companies that are part of the RIAA, There's a lot of good independent record companies that don't try to screw people over and don't care if their music is pirated, and actually respect their artists.
Thats all good but if the artist you like arent on those independent labels than what you back to buying the music the artist you like regardless of the label.
Huh? You worded that weird, I'd never buy music from anyone that is part of the RIAA, including artists I like. They are supporting the RIAA and allow the RIAA to speak for them. Anyway, any artist that is part of a major label is constantly being ripped off.
I don't really see why they would even make that statement at the time they made it. It sounds like they're making the other sides case for them. Strange.
You know, you can buy DRM free music on Amazon. Done and done.
BTW, I had to post that comment three times to get it to show.
You're still supporting the RIAA if you are buying their music.
Personally I don't have a problem paying for music. If you want to only buy music that isn't attached to the RIAA (CDbaby maybe?) then that's fine. I think of it more as supporting (with real money) artists that I like.
Still bands that are part of the RIAA tend to get screwed over by their record company. A band doesn't need a manager and 2 tour buses, they hardly get a fraction of what they should.
At the very least they shouldn't be allowed to call it "selling". If they can take access away, they're obviously "renting".
F.uck the RIAA. I'm sick of them, their whining, their lame ass excuses, and all of their other bullsh.it. I bought a song (or license), I should be able to play it forever - not until they decide they no longer want to have the server running. If they take away the server, I should get my money back. Buying something entitles an agreement. An agreement that money will be exchanged for goods and services to be obtained by the purchaser. This does not entitle the seller to take those goods away whenever they so damn choose. Fu.ck you RIAA.
Can you imagine more perfect endorsements for:
1) The Pirate Party
2) Assassination Politics
3) the "He Needed Killing" legal defence (actually worked in TX, supposedly)
than this RIAA statement?
As a consumer I would like to tell the RIAA that they shouldn't expect me to buy anything that uses DRM unless it can be easily broken or is extremely cheap. 15¢ songs with super restrictive DRM I might actually go for (as long as they work on my iPod and my Mac).
At least DRM and the RIAA both seem to be losing the battle with natural selection and will hopefully both be extinct in a few more years. Adapt or die bitches!
That's actually exactly what somebody wants the copyright office to allow. They say after a DRM server goes down it should be legal to remove the DRM from the files.
The RIAA is saying even then removing DRM should remain illegal.
Hi, RIAA.
Loonie says he knows, that's why he doesn't buy DRM-locked crap. He also wanted to let you know that you have been granted a license to kiss his ass.
A license by the way, that will never be taken away.
Wait... do I understand this right. They throw a system like DRM down people's throats to keep their thieving customers - face it, they treat us all like thieves - in check only to state that it might go down at any time and that's the nature of it?
Sure, if I break my CD in my collection, that's on me. I blame myself.
If they take down the DRM server, then that's on them, right? Or by using their logic, it's also on me because I bought it under their current rules and they might change, alter, or disconnect at any damn time they please?
Yeah. No wonder they're seen as the "bad guy". Bunch of folks stuffing their pockets today finding new ways to do so tomorrow.
Music subscription services are doomed!
Attack the RIAA!!!
Reply to yourself!!!
This shows their weakness.... what's needed now is for someone to 1) ask their Digital Rights to be transferred to another person and 2) a way for someone to grant Digital Rights to someone else in their will. If I've purchased rights to the content, I should be able to transfer those rights and treat them as assets, since I've paid for them. If anyone out there has content under DRM, then they should push for systems to allow for these two things at minimum. My $0.02.
It's like they're trying to piss everyone off.
What congress should do is pass a law saying that when the server is going down they need to provide an option to download a drm free track, or a way of defeating the current drm. If they can't do that they should refund the money for the tracks or face lawsuit. It's true, they won't be around forever... so we should be prepared by making it restrictive for them to enter into the business in the first place.
Of course DRM servers don't need to run forever! After a certain amount of time they are no longer necessary because the DRM has been cracked and needs to be replaced with something that actually 'works' :P
Interesting. The RIAA don't realize it yet, but with this statement they are fundamentally destroying the stockholder value of their customers (the media companies) due to the way corporate accounting rules work.
When media companies sell a DVD for $10, the recognize $10 of revenue on their balance sheet immediately, because it's a sale. But, the RIAA are essentially saying the customer is subscribing to the content, not buying the content (and, they can revoke the subscription in the future). Because of revenue recognition rules, they must divide the payment over the length of their subscription. So, if they are saying "you get to use the content for up to 20 years", they can only record $0.50 revenue per year (but they get to do that for 20 years - so after 20 years, they've now gotten the $10 in revenue).
In one fell swoop, a media company that sells 1M DVDs would move from earning $10M in revenue, to $500k. 20x less revenue. Media company stock values would plummet. Great job RIAA. You know how to look out for your customers.
great argument. if this went to the press, it'd create more attention then we could dream about
"no other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards."
Hmm, I have an 1890 abridged version of Robison Crusoe. Then there are all those statues and paintings, some of which are even older than 100 years! Stunning. In fact, ALL other products and services that are on any sort of permanent media are held to such lofty standards.
Last time I bought a book, I am pretty sure, that I got "perpetual access" to the creative work - and I would hold the book publisher to that standard..... (no, I wouldn't by a Kindle).
Death to the RIAA!
RIAA: Buy DRM-free music or steal it.
RIAA kiss my ass
and MPAA kiss my ass also
all we want is to hear goo music at a quality price if you lower
the price of a cd to like 5 bucks so many more people will buy them
and change a dvd price to 10 its not like it cost you 20 to make the damn thing
help us out and we will help you out
fuck you!!
cheers
p.s. long live torrents
I buy all my media, unless it´s protected by DMR or impossible to buy in my country.
Every DMR provider should be obligated by law to provide a program to un-DMR in case the DMR service is suspended, better yet DMR systems should automatically decode the media to a DMR free format after a certain amount of time, best of all GET RID OF DRM; it´s evil and only hurts the people that buys media legally and only increase costs for the manufacture while decreasing the value of their products
Do we agree that music/films should NOT be free? because it shouldn't... Artists deserve to be paid for their creativity efforts and for being our entertainers, and publishers for letting it reach us. The truth is I don't care who gets how much, but that is their frackin' problem. What I don't see is why they need a institutional copyright holders association with the sole mission of taxing the extra dollars they didn’t deserve, advocate for restriction of usage laws/licensing models to ensure they get delivered those dollars, and finally prosecute people just to scare the rest of us that are circumventing unfair laws and or limits
What happens with these suckers is that the put stupid limitations to content use in order to fill their bag of greed. They helped grow piracy above a structural level (there always be people that don't like to pay for things). They failure to do the best for their own business is well beyond my comprehension
But uhm, we don't need publisher any more to let it reach us.
u r right
why the artists aint sanctioning this evil RIAA?
"...expect their DRM servers to stay online and allow them to play their music to play forever.." Huh? The grammar on this site is getting terrible... I guess it's ok, it's not like you guys are writers or anything.
Isn't that why we demand DRM-free content? Why is the RIAA spending money on Mr. Obvious?