Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the Steaming-Pile-of-Bullocks dept.

Responding to a consultation of the EU Commission, various music industry groups are warning against a right for consumers to sell their MP3s. IFPI notes that people should be barred from selling their digital purchases because it's too convenient, while the quality of digital copies remains top-notch.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:28PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:28PM (#34336) Homepage Journal
    I'm sorry, doesn't exactly the same apply to CDs? Assuming you don't have children that is. They're every bit as digital as any mp3.
    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:38PM

      by Vanderhoth (61) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:38PM (#34342)

      CDs do have a shelf life and quality degrades over time. That said, this is still just grasping at straws.

      --
      "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:50PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:50PM (#34346) Homepage Journal
        That's fair. Then again the media mp3s are stored on have a shelf life also. Which reminds me, I have some drives in use at about 2x their MTBF that need replaced.
        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by mmcmonster on Tuesday April 22 2014, @09:48PM

        by mmcmonster (401) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @09:48PM (#34604)

        What is the shelf life for a pressed CD (as opposed to a burnt CD)?

        I still have the vast majority of the CDs I bought in the mid 90s and none of them have any problems not attributed to physical scratches they built up over the years.

        • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday April 22 2014, @11:06PM

          by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @11:06PM (#34633)

          All CDs are burned. The difference is quality of the CD burner and the quality of the disks used.

          --
          When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mcgrew on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:18PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:18PM (#34363) Homepage Journal

      Indeed it does. Backups protect your files from bitrot, children, and animals.

      As to reselling MP3s I don't think they should be sold at all. When you "buy" an MP3 you haven't bought anything, you're paying for the privilege of listening.

      When you buy an LP or CD you're not buying music, you're buying its container; music is free. As is reading; the radio is free, the library is free. I post my books on my web site because I think it's ludicrous to "sell" bits, music, or novels. Only the physical media costs.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:41PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:41PM (#34381)

        Ah, but it's illegal* to back up your CDs, at least in the US and if they've got some form of copy protection on them, which isn't exactly uncommon even if it's typically completely ineffective.

        * assuming the DMCA exemptions haven't changed since last I looked

        • (Score: 1) by xorsyst on Wednesday April 23 2014, @08:23AM

          by xorsyst (1372) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @08:23AM (#34755)

          CDs don't have any copy protection on them, other than a single bit that says "this recording shouldn't be copied".

          • (Score: 1) by Immerman on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:04PM

            by Immerman (3985) on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:04PM (#35577)

            And? Crappy copy protection is still copy protection under the DMCA. The precedent seems to have been established that the "effective copy protection" cited doesn't refer to protection that's actually somewhat effective, but to at any technology that's effectively a form of copy protection. (And logically it'd pretty much have to - otherwise the law ceases to be relevant as soon as it becomes possible to do the thing it's trying to prevent)

            Also, don't forget the Sony Rootkit and other underhanded copy protection schemes installed on many CDs.

        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 23 2014, @01:56PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday April 23 2014, @01:56PM (#34876) Homepage Journal

          That's true, which is why I always return any copy protected CDs to the store for a refund on the grounds that they're defective. After my daughter infected my system with XCP I've been really strict about DRM, I won't tolerate it.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:54PM

        by edIII (791) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:54PM (#34386)

        As to reselling MP3s I don't think they should be sold at all. When you "buy" an MP3 you haven't bought anything, you're paying for the privilege of listening.

        I strongly disagree and believe that is factually incorrect.

        You did actually purchase something. Under the law copyrights can be evaluated as property and are routinely viewed as property by government. That includes the IRS and the courts.

        I pay 99c to a distributor for a MP3. In exchange that "privilege" what I receive is actually a legal entitlement. Through the distributor all the way back up to the copyright owner I have received a legal right to enjoy the protected work privately with peaceful enjoyment.

        That legal right I received is in fact property according to the law in the exact same way the parent set of legal rights granted to the copyright holder are property. You can't pick and choose here, and it's not selective. It's all property.

        The confusion stems from the physical mediums used to transfer a copy of the protected work to the buyer of that legal entitlement. People are used to property being physical because it is more than a little insane and counter intuitive that you can own an idea or expression. We do it at this time only because it is currently the best model for fostering innovation and creation of new works. A different model may not even require that these legal entitlements called copyrights exist for it to work. Imaginary property is this crazy idea and when given an inch, people that got rich off it, wanted the mile.

        A physical CD is quite useful in that regard, and somewhat more amenable to the industry only because the transfer of that physical medium during a second hand sale more effectively transfers that legal entitlement to privately enjoy the work. The original buyer is more effectively deprived of the ability and would need to purchase again if they wanted to enjoy the work.

        MP3 secondhand sales scare them so much because there is no real physical medium anymore and people can just transfer around perfect copies irrespective of any markets or economies.

        However, that's not an excuse to prevent people from engaging in legal transfers of their "privileges" as you call them. It's not an argument. Under the law I was granted that privilege as a legal right interpreted by the courts to be my property.

        I have a right to sell my property. Period. That's just basic stuff in a purportedly advanced and civilized society.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by mrclisdue on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:51PM

          by mrclisdue (680) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:51PM (#34445)

          We do it at this time only because it is currently the best model for fostering innovation and creation of new works.

          [citation] - no, not really, because this is clearly a thought becoming an opinion becoming a mantra becoming gospel becoming a belief. There is no way to ever prove that this is the best model, because the US-centric legal system has deemed it to be the only legally acceptable model, and one is a criminal for thinking and practicing otherwise. IP truly is Imaginary Property, and forever it shall be.

          Great post, by the way, one of the best I've read here (or 'oer there.)

          cheers,

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:02PM

            by edIII (791) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:02PM (#34565)

            I was doing my best to write an unbiased and more or less scientifically approached argument :)

            Your point is well taken. It's the model we know and understand in an economy that uses another aspect of Imaginary Property... and this is the US Dollar. Backed by nothing that actually exists, and in my own personal view, but fear instead which is also an imagined product.

            I think money is the root issue here. Once we move beyond that there are any number of other reasonable models to create incentives to produce intellectual contributions towards our common knowledge and experience. Personally, that will always be free. That's a philosophical position that I hold and cliche to be sure.

            Information will always remain free. Fear will make us choose to not reach for it. Either that or the fact I can't actually travel to Sirius to see what it looks like.

            As an aside, I find it interesting that we almost thoroughly solved the distribution problem with the Internet for information, and hard drives solved the redundancy part (book burning defense). The only thing we have left really is the direct transfer of thoughts and ideas without physical expressions.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by davester666 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:59PM

          by davester666 (155) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:59PM (#34477)

          No, you received a license to the music, which is different from property, and probably contains a "you cannot resell this music" term.

          CD's/DVD's are different in that you have TWO things, namely you have the disk itself as property, then a license to the media stored on the property.

          • (Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:29PM

            by edIII (791) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:29PM (#34534)

            No, you received a license to the music, which is different from property, and probably contains a "you cannot resell this music" term.

            That's a common misunderstanding of copyright. It is NOT different from property. It is a special case whereby the government actually creates property out of thin air. Sounds insane I know, but the whole intellectual property model is fraught with such insanity precisely because a reasonable person would never assume it to be property, which is what you just did.

            You create a work of music. At the time you created it, the government granted you a set of well defined (Title 17) legal entitlements. All the common stuff you are already know. You can control the distribution of your music, who can sell it for you, and in turn, control who profits from it. Part of that is also performance rights.

            In Title 17, in all the times I looked, it never mentions a single time, "you cannot resell this music". That is a restriction completely outside of the scope of copyright and while a corporation may try to shove additional legal cruft towards you on the table with TOS, EULA, blah blah blah, you are not bound by anything other than Title 17. In other words, a corporation cannot abrogate Title 17 just because they feel like it.

            Why is property you may ask?

            MONEY . That's why it's property. Copyrights are literally created out of thin air and exist only as a legal abstraction. However, it's all contractual language between the parties that is governed by Title 17, and as such, the courts are forced to treat it as property.

            The copyrights to your music are yours, and they are worth money. Government treats that as property of course for the primary purpose of assessing value and levying taxes. As a secondary purpose it's treated as property to allow the transfer of wealth between interested parties.

            You can research that and you will find that there is a long standing history and legal precedence for treating it as property. Otherwise those sneaky bastards at the recording labels would argue with government to find legal loopholes regarding taxation. Not that they need the help. If anything, being treated as property allows the record labels to utilize creative accounting to enjoy tax breaks not afforded to regular people.

            Since your copyrights are treated as property, anything derived from that, is property as well. I provide you compensation and you provide me with a legal entitlement that allows me peaceful enjoyment (another critical legal concept) of your music. You just created property out of thin air and handed it to me. To make things easier though and more intuitive to the general populace you put the price tag on a piece of plastic instead of a legal contract that requires signatures.

            Another point to consider intellectual property as *real* property in effect, is that it's literally required for business to operate. Take acquisitions and mergers of corporations as an example. You own a large website that provides services to thousands of people every day. While rendering these services you use music as a background. Well, copyrights in the possession of the musician allow them to control performances, and you are creating a performance of their music for your customers by which you profit. You don't want to pay the musician his demand for $1 million USD per year. Instead you choose different music that is marketed as royalty free and pay $250,000 USD as a one time cost to provide services to your customers.

            After the acquisition, does the buyer need to pay $250,000 USD all over again? Are they held hostage by the musician who sees deep pockets (or sells by the "color of the eyes") and demands $1 million USD? Absolutely not. The buyer had all that music listed out in the sales contract to effect the transfer of those legal entitlements granted in the first sale. This is extremely important to the overall functioning of the intellectual property model as recording labels can only increase their IP holdings in this way.

            Licenses granted during the sale of music are entirely transferable according to ethics. Since that is apparently not enough for those scumbags, the licenses are transferable as an intrinsic property of the whole copyright model.

            OF COURSE, the monied interests NEVER want the average American (or anyone else) to understand how copyrights work in the business world, since they want to force the issue and have you pay the $10 again.

            Businesses give them the finger all day long as that idea is crazy and they know better. Their lawyers will inform them of that. Nobody is telling the American people though how copyrights really work in the court of law for a reason.

            An uneducated consumer is a more profitable relationship.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by donjan on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:16PM

          by donjan (323) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:16PM (#34613)

          I fully agree with your comment except for one point. Maybe it's because of a culture difference (assumably you're from the USA, I'm Swiss), but:
          Property is a right (be it natural or by agreement), yet rights are not property.
          Copyright is clearly a right, but it is not a property. Instead, rights are (for the lack of a better word) "rules", and our laws reflect that... maybe yours in the USA do as well in accordance to what you wrote?

          So yes, I'm buying a license (which gives me the right) to listen to a song, or to reproduce the song, but I can't buy the song itself, which is an imaginary object. Just as I can't steal it (where the relevant part is the deprivation of the victim), lend it (I can lend the data carrier), or otherwise treat it as property. Unlike with property, there is nothing inherent preventing everybody from multiplying the _song itself_ a million times at will and sending it to the whole world in negligible time without the original holder being aware of or possibly even affected by it. So for various useful benefits, we have introduced the "right to copy". But even that is fuzzy, heck, every time I watch a Youtube video there are at the very least three copies of it around (server, client cache, RAM) plus all the tiered network caches by semi-related parties.

          I can transfer my copyright, but that attribute alone is far from everything you can do with property. Is this really so different across the pond?

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:48PM

            by edIII (791) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:48PM (#34626)

            It really is different over here.

            In the courts they will consider the copyrights themselves as property that the copyright holder has. You are entirely correct about the correct usage of the word "rights" and that rights are not property.

            IP over here however, demands the distinction that copyrights are specifically property to meet some legal definition. I don't understand their reasoning either, but I have read it often enough in legal articles about copyrights and IP in general while doing my own research. I tend to give more weight towards those in the legal profession on how laws work, especially lawyers teaching law at universities.

            My reasoning is, assuming that US courts do treat it as property as I have been led to believe, and that since the copyright is real property under the law, a legal right derived from the execution of that exact same law must also be property in the court of law. I support that reasoning with how copyrights are treated by the copyright holder in legal cases, and how First Sale Doctrine is interpreted to allow sale of one's property and the ability to transfer legal obligations and contracts to another person or corporation. In short the copyright follows the owner, not the creator, and the license to enjoy the work follows the owner as well. To be clear, there is always a creator of the copyright, but they can assign all of those rights considered property to another. That's how record labels create contracts in the first place to actually "own" the produced work by an artist.

            No, I don't agree with any of it. It's patently stupid at this point with our increases in technology and new model for creating incentives for people to produce works is sorely needed.

            All of that crap isn't real in the strictest sense and our abstractions about it our counterproductive towards society.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 23 2014, @01:52PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday April 23 2014, @01:52PM (#34871) Homepage Journal

          Under the law copyrights can be evaluated as property and are routinely viewed as property by government. That includes the IRS and the courts.

          That is indeed true, but it only applies to the copyright holder, not his customers. The copyright holder can impose any terms he wishes on an electronic copy, which isn't true of a physical copy.

          If you don't have a piece of paper signed by the copyright holder saying you have the right to resell, you don't have that right. Without the copyright holder's blessing your only right is to listen to the MP3.

          I have a right to sell my property.

          It isn't your property, it's the copyright holders "property". Unlike real property, such as a piece of land, copyrights expire 75 years after the death of the author, 95 years after issuance if the copyright holder is a corporation.

          Did you know that even though you hold copyright as soon as the work is published, you can't sue for infringement unless you register it?

          I went through bankrupcy. I held two registered copyrights at the time on obsolete computer programs, which I had to list as assets (the judge let me keep them since they're now commercially worthless) I didn't have to list books, CDs, DVDs, tapes, LPs, or cassettes as property.

          YMMV, of course, different countries have different laws and legal systems.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday April 23 2014, @07:01PM

            by edIII (791) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @07:01PM (#35077)

            If you don't have a piece of paper signed by the copyright holder saying you have the right to resell, you don't have that right. Without the copyright holder's blessing your only right is to listen to the MP3.

            The copyright holder doesn't have the right to prevent me, and the default state is not prevention of reselling my license.

            There is a huge difference between sell and resell. There is a significant amount of case history in this country that explicitly allows reselling. The courts have always sided with the consumer by recognizing that reselling does not harm the manufacturer or creator of that property.

            It's been a huge battle, but the US courts have made it clear that you have a right to sell your property and that is incorrect for businesses and sellers to attempt control over the sale of property. If you really look at business the only way to ensure control over the product in the customer's hands is to not sell it. There is an awful lot of technology in business that can only be leased and rented, and not purchased. This occurs for a reason. Equipment rental has been the only way a corporation can effectively maintain control and defend that control legally.

            I give you $5 and you are granting me rights by exercising your rights given to you under Title 17. That right you just provided me with under Title 17 is real property in the same way the original set of entitlements is real property. You cannot exercise your rights under Title 17 and create something that isn't property. It is that unique because there is nothing real whatsoever associated with that copyright. Those physical mediums are expressions, and the copyright protects the content of the expression, not the physical medium conveying it. For the purposes of law they needed to make some part of that actually real, which they did. The legal entitlements are granted the property of being "real property" in order to facilitate legal actions.

            You are correct that now I have your "blessing" to listen to your MP3. However, you are incorrect in believing that I did not receive property. That "blessing" you gave is real and transferable.

            What I'm saying can be seen as true by looking at interactions between businesses. All of those rights you granted me are transferable if I sell my business. They are not locked to me personally forever. The new business owners are not required to compensate you all over again for music I purchased.

            It just doesn't apply to a business. Over the years I may have amassed over $15k in licenses I've acquired. Nothing stops me from selling my DVDs does it? Of course not. According to your logic I'm forbidden from selling my DVD. By selling it and receiving $1 I have performed fraud to one person and copyright infringement to you? That's obviously not true.

            Why would there be a difference between a MP3 and DVD? There isn't a difference other than the mere technicality of the distribution. You sent me a copy over the Internet for me to store on the physical mediums of my choosing.

            Nothing I am doing harms you other than your perception that you are being deprived of money. Respectfully, I believe the source of that is this idea you have full control over your protected expressions. You don't and your control is limited specifically to that described by Title 17. This is why we need to put more sanity back into the copyright model we have to counteract this sense of extreme sense of entitlement when it comes to owning ideas and expressions. I'm not singling you out in this way of course.

            I do strongly believe, at least with US copyright law, that they cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they want to create real property out of thin air, then they need to accept that the logical consequence of that is that I get to treat my property as my property.

            Licenses are transferable simply because by default all licenses and contracts are transferable. Title 17 makes no mention anywhere with explicit language that granted licenses for viewing or listening are not transferable.

            In fact, making a licensing agreement not transferable is unusual and rare. Do we listen to Microsoft trying to say that I cannot transfer my OEM XP license from machine to machine to machine? Not often, and you should ask yourself why.

            The ability to treat my license to listen to an MP3 as property is truly fundamental, and the ethical way to conduct ourselves.

            I paid you dude. Leave me alone :)

            • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:30PM

              by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday April 24 2014, @12:30PM (#35486) Homepage Journal

              There is a huge difference between sell and resell. There is a significant amount of case history in this country that explicitly allows reselling. The courts have always sided with the consumer by recognizing that reselling does not harm the manufacturer or creator of that property.

              True, for physical goods. You own the CD, not the songs on it.

              Licenses are transferable simply because by default all licenses and contracts are transferable.

              Do you have a copy of that license? If not, you have no license.

              Nothing I am doing harms you other than your perception that you are being deprived of money. Respectfully, I believe the source of that is this idea you have full control over your protected expressions. You don't and your control is limited specifically to that described by Title 17. This is why we need to put more sanity back into the copyright model we have to counteract this sense of extreme sense of entitlement when it comes to owning ideas and expressions. I'm not singling you out in this way of course.

              I do strongly believe, at least with US copyright law, that they cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they want to create real property out of thin air, then they need to accept that the logical consequence of that is that I get to treat my property as my property.

              I agree with that completely. Like I said, the idea of selling bits is ludicrous.

              --
              mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
              • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:23PM

                by edIII (791) on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:23PM (#35708)

                True, for physical goods. You own the CD, not the songs on it.

                You own some physical plastic and you also own a license.

                Do you have a copy of that license? If not, you have no license.

                Ahhh, if this is the source of your confusion then it's easily solved.

                Yes, with all contracts there needs to exist a legal instrument. In the most typical cases this does represent printed paper, witnesses, notaries, and signatures.

                How does a proper legal instrument exist when I hand you my $5 and you hand me my CD? You are asking (reasonably) what governs your actions when nothing was put to paper and you never signed anything.

                By definition a legal instrument can also be a, "law passed by a competent legislative body in municipal (domestic) or international law".

                Title 17 provides the "physicality" of this license for me. It governs the actions of every citizen in the United States with respect to all actions performed in the furtherance of compliance with Title 17.

                When you speak of the physicality of this legal instrument you are really referring to the existence of jurisdiction.

                As long as you admit your intent was to sell me the music and not the plastic, and I admit there was consideration and I gave it, we fall under the jurisdiction of Title 17 and it provides all legal instruments in their default state that are legally binding upon the parties. Contractually attempting to modify that usually doesn't work when contract law states you cannot abrogate an existing law with a contract. It prevents stuff like indentured servitude and selling your first born, but also that your boss can't require you to speed down the highway.

                So to prevent me you need a contract with addendums around the existing framework that is Title 17. Where is that? Does it prevent me?

                Let's assume that it does. We may disagree on whether it can be considered an item of property, but I'm not wrong with how much legal precedence there is to considering legal instruments created by Title 17 property either. I will admit though, I don't specifically know of an instance where a digitally distributed protected work was disputed by the licensee.

                That's what I have by default though regardless of the property question. A legal instrument created by Title 17. So we can disagree, but if anything I think I can present a damned interesting legal question to the court that has to be answered to both our satisfaction.

                --
                Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday April 25 2014, @12:34PM

                  by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday April 25 2014, @12:34PM (#36025) Homepage Journal

                  How does a proper legal instrument exist when I hand you my $5 and you hand me my CD?

                  Your CD will have the license terms printed on it. It will describe what you can't do, which usually boils down to "don't copy this", although I've seen indie CDs that stated "be kind, burn a copy for a friend."

                  So to prevent me you need a contract with addendums around the existing framework that is Title 17. Where is that?

                  Copyright law.

                  --
                  mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
    • (Score: 1) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:23PM

      by digitalaudiorock (688) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:23PM (#34368) Journal

      I'm sorry, doesn't exactly the same apply to CDs? Assuming you don't have children that is. They're every bit as digital as any mp3.

      Absolutely...and higher quality no less. The ineptness of this industry really knows no bounds. They have a business model that doesn't hold up well in the age of the Internet, and seem to long for the "good old days" when it suits them, but want to change the rules when it doesn't (people have always bought and sold used CDs)...all the while driving the general public towards all the illegal options. Yea...that'll work.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @03:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @03:28PM (#34415)

      The only reason there is a license agreement, is to censor the user from believing they bought an MP3.

    • (Score: 1) by DrMag on Tuesday April 22 2014, @03:35PM

      by DrMag (1860) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @03:35PM (#34420)

      Actually, if you look behind the biased interpretation of what they're saying, there's some truth to what they say.

      For a physical CD:
      Consumer purchases CD - $15
      Consumer sells CD - $10
      Consumer no longer has a copy of it. New owner is purchasing a used copy, which in principle may have degraded due to the physical material of the CD itself (scratches, etc.)

      For an MP3:
      Consumer purchases MP3 - $10 (assuming the whole album)
      Consumer sells MP3 - $7
      Consumer still has a copy of it, and the burden remains with them to be honest and delete the files. New owner is purchasing a "used" copy, but assuming no corruption of data during transfer, the quality of the file is exactly as if purchased new.

      Another way to look at it is the problem with piracy:
      Selling hard media copies used to have degraded copies as the sound was transferred from one medium to another. (e.g. transferring vinyl to audiocassette). Supposedly, professionally mastered CDs have better audio fidelity than MP3s (though to my ears, I can't tell much of a difference).

      With MP3s, you have this possible scenario:
      Consumer purchases MP3 album - $10
      Consumer copies MP3s to 1000 people for $1 a piece - $1000
      Consumer profits $990 while still retaining the original $10 album: net profit, $1000.

      With that, I can understand what they're saying, or at least what I hope they're saying. If these companies actually believe that the quality of MP3s is such that they're too valuable to allow regular folks to sell... well, I can't help them.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:46PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:46PM (#34441)

        If you're dumb^H^H^H^Hethical enough to resell a CD without keeping a rip of it...

        The entire idea of reselling mp3s without a DRM scheme is laughable. If there *is* a DRM scheme, it would obviously attempt to prevent you from keeping a copy of the mp3s after you resold them.

        It seems to me the only way this entire system works is to sell the physical CDs, or sell mp3s and just assume everyone is rampantly pirating them (and try to sue everyone, so business as usual for the RIAA).

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:35PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:35PM (#34465)

          Selling only CDs doesn't prevent people from keeping copies. It's trivial to rip a CD these days, either into MP3, or into WAV or better yet FLAC. Of course, this doesn't give you the little booklet, the CD with screen-printed graphics, etc., but not everyone cares about those things.

          If the record industry wants to prevent piracy, they need to just dump all digital formats, and go back to vinyl records and cassettes. It's impossible to prevent copying of anything digital.

          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:57PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:57PM (#34521)

            They used to have cassette tape drives for early computers...And I *know* they sell vinyl-to-USB converter turntables.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:02PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @08:02PM (#34566)

              Yes, I had one of those cassette drives; in fact, it was just a standard tape deck and a special cable.

              However, this is apples-and-oranges. You can "rip" a cassette or vinyl record, yes, but it'll never be an *identical* copy, it's a digital copy of an analog copy made in a factory from some other analog master (which may have been produced from a digital master). Plus, it'll be cursed with either tape hiss or the unavoidable noises that records make (though I suppose you could get one of those ultra-expensive laser turntables that uses a laser instead of a diamond stylus, but it's still just digitizing an analog signal). The whole argument with MP3s and CDs is they're already digital, so you can make an absolutely perfect copy of the form that the record company is selling. You could come close with a digitized analog copy, but not perfect. Plus, those analog formats have built-in weaknesses in frequency response, dynamic range, etc., while CD-quality digital formats are generally superior to these (though not as good, of course, as higher-resolution digital formats like those with 48kHz or 96kHz sampling or higher bits/sample).

              • (Score: 1) by urza9814 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:47PM

                by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:47PM (#34625) Journal

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartl ey_theorem [wikipedia.org]

                There are limits to what frequencies you can physically store on vinyl or cassette. If you know those limits, it is trivial to set the sampling rate such that no information is lost when digitizing.

                Sure, your digitized vinyl won't be as good as the master copy...but it can certainly be as good as the vinyl itself.

              • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Wednesday April 23 2014, @03:31AM

                by SlimmPickens (1056) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @03:31AM (#34696)
                The problem with vinyl is not noises, especially modern compounds, it's the muddy bass created by the RIAA EQ curve [wikipedia.org] which exists to stop the needle bouncing out of the groove due to the size of the bass waves. I hate it when DJ's try and argue that vinyl is better than digital. They just don't get that modern digital (especially pro) is a fucking massive signal in comparison, and their shiny new tech house record was written on a computer anyway. Stupid.
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by gishzida on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:33PM

        by gishzida (2870) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:33PM (#34464) Journal

        On the other hand it makes a nice counterpoint to the eternal copyright extension that seems to be the obsession of Corporate IP holders... Artists make no money from recorded media unless they own the masters [not likely unless they are completely independent of the RIAA. The point is simply recorded media should have a "reasonable" shelf life... and then fall into public domain. But for the RIAA and the MPAA bought and paid for changes in 1976 all media prior to 1958 would be in the public domain. The max copyright term used to be 2 x 28 years-- now it's life of creator + 75 years!!! Tell me what is the "life" of "The Walt Disney Company"?

        It illusion that is sold is that in a "digital economy" the production costs and values are the same but the cost of producing a physical record or a physical DVD or a physical Book are not the same as their "digital" equivalents. They're not. The cost of a 10 Mb file on a 1 TB disk is .0001 cents [amortizing the cost of the disk to the number of files being stored... even if you said it cost a penny a file that is not the same as the cost of producing a phycical CD to hold the same files.

        To make matters even worse the Copyright Act of 1976 screwed the artists out of performance fees for any disk that had more than 10 tracks.

        Then there is the "recording master"... it is a kind of musical peonage. If you want to record you sign a record deal... which give you absolutely nothing except a portion of the "performance pie" as a writer [and not as an artist]. What the record deal does is lends you money to record your songs in a studio of the record company's choice [price fixed of course]. The "master recording" is delivered to the record company as its property... you do not own that recording!!! The Record Company then produces media of various kinds and promotes it... and if it does not make money the Artist owes the record company for those "promotion costs". For an initial investment of $50K-$200K the record companies have at least a 100 years of guaranteed income... as long as they can continue to maintain their iron grip on the market place.

        I met someone back in the 90's that had two platinum records but according to the record company, the records did not make any money so the members of the band were forced into bankruptcy... which had the net effect that the record company in the long term got the gold and the band got the shaft.

        As for movies... Didn't "Hollywood" start because they were running from Edison's patents on movie making methods? The pirates of Hollywood are still taking the low road.

        Then there is the technical side of things... audiowise MP3s have the dynamic range of "crap" since it is a "lossy" compression scheme. AACs are crap too... What you are buying is "transistor radio music" when compared to a CD or even Vinyl.

        Want decent audio? use a loss-less codec -- but that comes at the expense of media space... Loss-less audio gives the full dynamic range of the original recording but can be up to six times larger than an equivalent MP3. FLAC [a loss-less codec] takes half the space of an equivalent WAV recording but is five times larger than an MP3. Sony's PCA format takes about 30 percent of the space of a WAV file with no loss... but that is still three times larger than an MP3.

        The way I figure it, is most people have been buying "crap" media from the Record Companies for so long that they don't realized that what they are hearing is nothing like the studio original or sitting in the same room and hearing the artist play. As for movies... ever tried to watch a streamed movie or a cable channel on a good computer monitor??? Yup all those artifacts are from lossy compression.

        As far as I am concerned the media companies need to get a new business model-- screwing the artist and screwing consumers when they have become a closely held oligarchic monopolies should not be allow to continue.

        One final thing here... these self same media companies own our "culture"... All of those famous quotes and songs and movies and ideas.. all owned... J.S. Bach - we own as his work [and brilliance!] is now public domain... we own nothing from the early 20th centenary onward... except in a few cases where copyright lapsed and was not renewed [So you get the works of H. Beam Piper and a few others as a consolation prize]...

        So as a musician who was shut out from the music monopoly I can only hope the EU says "No" to their over reach.

         

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 03 2014, @12:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 03 2014, @12:27PM (#39215)

      Now what's that say" Tsutsunde moraemasuka? Martin Slark Yes, greatness has been found to significantly control costs., online casinos no download [bestcasinoclubcom.com], [url="http://bestcasinoclubcom.com/"]online casinos no download[/url], 47723,

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by bornagainpenguin on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:44PM

    by bornagainpenguin (3538) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:44PM (#34344)

    Okay, I'll go along with the argument that MP3s are magic and as such should be exempt from resale in an aftermarket--but then MP3s need to cost much much less than they do now. Fair enough?

    Say maybe about a quarter a song? Somehow I don't think the MAFIAA are going to go for it...

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by gman003 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:22PM

      by gman003 (4155) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:22PM (#34367)

      I think you could better replicate the "used copies cost less" pattern by cutting down the copyright term - that way older "copies" cost less (by virtue of being free).

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:32PM

      by edIII (791) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:32PM (#34377)

      No deal. This is one of those things that is a basic human right to me.

      You have the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property, and this right includes the ability to give it away in exchange for consideration .

      First Sale isn't just some nebulous concept used in court. It revolves around the idea that you do have the right to transfer your licenses to anyone else for any reason.

      The MAFIAA, and of course the video game industry, feel they should be able to control the actions of their customers long after consideration has been exchanged. That position is excoriated by ethics primarily and actually reading copyright law in the US.

      Their argument now, in a tradition of evil (by definition), is that it's so easy everyone could do it and that would hurt them.

      Well... DUH. Firstly, that's exactly the way it should be and is a measure of technical progress in our society. Secondly, they are complaining because it would deprive them of sales.

      Tough cookies you bastards! The market will always have them offering new licenses, as well as old ones others are selling. The Used market is entirely valid from an ethical perspective and supported legally.

      That all comes down to legislating away the competition. It's such a freakin joke everywhere on this planet that free markets and Capitalism even exist when they don't. Corporations don't want to play fair and then have the unmitigated gall to claim we aren't playing fair because they are losing.

      I see that mentality a lot lately. Guess where? My 4 year old relative I've been spending time with.

      The entire industry is run by emotional toddlers with poor impulse control that can't play well with others. Yet.... my senators listen to them more than they do to me.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:10PM

      by mhajicek (51) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:10PM (#34428)

      mp3million.com sells DRM free mp3s for 9 cents each.

      --
      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:48PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:48PM (#34442)

      Ummmm...non sequitur much? Jesus, I swear I have whiplash. Why should mp3s "obviously" be cheaper? If a physical CD costs 10 bucks and has 10 songs on it, the breakdown of $1 per song is equivalent. (Do new releases go for $10 these days, or more?)

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:29PM (#34535)

        I fail to see how you do not see the obviousness of it.

        If I can resell the item (CD) it is worth more to me then if I cannot resell the item (MP3) Therefore the original price should reflect that.

        *Bites my tongue so I don't say anything trollish, even if you deserve it.*

        • (Score: 1) by urza9814 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:54PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:54PM (#34630) Journal

          And that's only the half of it.

          A new release, double CD with full lyrics? I'll gladly pay $25 for that.

          Single CD, standard plastic case with just album art? $15, MAYBE $20.

          CD in a cardboard sleeve? Bought one of those for $5 recently. Would maybe go as high as $10.

          So, no CD, no sleeve, no resale? Yeah, no way I'm paying a full $10 for that. $5 seems about right. Then again, I haven't paid more than $5 for any digital album I've downloaded recently, so no problems there...but I dunno what the RIAA labels charge.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:53PM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:53PM (#34349)

    Sigh. The music industry has never seen a technical advance that they haven't thought was "clearly" going to kill the industry, unless everyone gave them a bunch of money. Playing songs for free on the radio? It will kill us! Recordable tape? It will kill us! Ripping CD's? It will kill us! Non-DRM'ed digital music? It will kill us! Net radio? It will kill us!

    Eventually, the fact that they're still in business should be a clue that maybe, just maybe, being popular and producing products people want ISN'T going to kill the industry...

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:02PM

      by Sir Garlon (1264) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:02PM (#34354)

      So what if the music industry does fail? Netflix killed the neighborhood video store and no consumer shed a tear. Why does one industry get protectionist laws while another gets swept aside by change? And who picked the recording industry as the one worth protecting?

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by danaris on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:08PM

        by danaris (3853) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:08PM (#34355)

        To answer your questions in reverse order:

        And who picked the recording industry as the one worth protecting?

        The recording industry.

        Why does one industry get protectionist laws while another gets swept aside by change?

        Because it has more money to spend on lobbying.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by clone141166 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:10PM

        by clone141166 (59) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:10PM (#34358)

        Yup you hit the nail on the head. In real capitalism bad and/or outdated business models are supposed to fail to make way for new, more innovative businesses. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen in our current crony capitalist model (@see "too big to fail").

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by mcgrew on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:31PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:31PM (#34375) Homepage Journal

        Netflix killed the neighborhood video store

        You could have fooled me. [google.com] Video stores are still thriving, and there's Redbox. Blockbuster is dead from bullet wounds to the foot, charging as much to rent a movie as it costs to buy the same title at Walmart, coupled with excessive late fees. Their own greed killed them. Renting tapes for $5 when a tape cost over a hundred made sense, when you can buy DVDs for $5-$20 charging that much for a rental shows an incredibly horrific mental handicap on someone's part.

        Redbox, Family Video and others are thriving because they only charge a buck, a far better deal than NetFlix for someone who only watches one or two movies a month at most.

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:39PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:39PM (#34466)

        So what if the music industry does fail? Netflix killed the neighborhood video store and no consumer shed a tear.

        I completely disagree. I read a post just a couple hours ago on "that other site" by someone complaining how "stupid" consumers abandoned the neighborhood video store (with its high rental prices and late fees) in favor of Netflix. In fact, I see that kind of attitude frequently on tech sites. I've never seen anyone complain more about modern progress as much as so-called "nerds" and "techies".

        • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:54PM

          by Sir Garlon (1264) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:54PM (#34472)

          You're misinterpreting my intent. When I said "no consumer shed a tear," I meant that to include me. Sure video stores were cool in the 80s but I was not sorry to see them go. I guess it would have been more clear if I'd used the cliche about buggy whips.

          --
          [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:01PM

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:01PM (#34479)

            No, I'm objecting to the idea that "no consumer shed a tear": lots of people lament the loss of neighborhood video stores and their ridiculous late fees. No, you and I don't, and obviously not enough people like that are out there patronizing such stores to keep them in business, but there are some people out there who really did love those places. I've seen lots of people online make such comments, saying how much they loved going to Blockbuster and looking through movies, talking to the employees there about movies, etc. Yes, I think they're morons, but they're out there.

            • (Score: 2) by unitron on Wednesday April 23 2014, @09:10AM

              by unitron (70) on Wednesday April 23 2014, @09:10AM (#34764) Journal

              I lament the demise of record stores where you could go look at vinyl discs, or, more precisely, the paper or cardboard sleeves in which they came, upon which there was usually artwork and text, one or both often of interest and informative.

              Judging the desirability of the product inside those covers by those covers was an entertaining pastime in and of itself.

              I can understand people having similar feelings about physical collections of videocassettes or DVDs.

              --
              something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Rune of Doom on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:08PM

      by Rune of Doom (1392) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:08PM (#34356)

      Unfortunately, the U.S. keeps moving closer and closer to treating "right to a profitable business model" as an actual thing. :-(

    • (Score: 1) by chuckugly on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:33PM

      by chuckugly (2910) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:33PM (#34502)

      Player piano technology was going to destroy the music (sheet music at the time IIRC) industry when the devices were introduced. It never changes.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:18PM (#34362)

    Bring back vinyl records. Offer free mp3 download.

    IMHO the real music lovers will buy them even quicker than a CD due to the artwork, quality and uniqueness of a record (it speaks about its owner). There still is a big market for collectors. Those people used to copy the albums on a reel to reel tape deck, today they digitally capture them. So now mp3's can be offered for listening convenience without having to play the original album.

    The more casual music listener will use services like spotify. They do not really own a big music collection. Some other people download mp3's for free, which is exactly the same as younger me buying a 5 pack of compact cassettes and bringing them along with other tapes to share music and maybe get the chance to copy albums from older brothers and sisters (who could afford the vinyl).

    As it is now, everything except the music on it about the CD is worthless. It really is a worthless piece of plastic, packaged in a low quality and even more worthless jewel case, with a 120x120mm sheet of artwork. The price of it, though, is ridiculously high. On the other hand, a vinyl record, while a little more expensive to manufacture and distribute, does warrant that pricing - if the artwork, cover or vinyl is interesting. In other words, a nice vinyl record in a nice sleeve in a nice cover looks and feels like a real quality product, with resale value. I have no problem paying EUR 20 for a good vinyl record. EUR 15 for a CD? No way!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:01PM (#34427)

      Amen.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:57PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:57PM (#34447)

      This whole post sounds like it's in audiophile territory so I'm probably stupid for replying, but...

      uniqueness of a record (it speaks about its owner).

      I'd like to hear what this inherent superiority of vinyl is. Owning vinyl makes me a better person?

      As it is now, everything except the music on it about the CD is worthless. It really is a worthless piece of plastic

      I would bet that with proper use and storage, CDs last through more playings than vinyl (although maybe not last as long time-wise). Or do they have record players that don't physically contact the record now?

      In other words, a nice vinyl record in a nice sleeve in a nice cover looks and feels like a real quality product, with resale value. I have no problem paying EUR 20 for a good vinyl record. EUR 15 for a CD? No way!

      Eh, like I said...I probably shouldn't have taken the bait. You seem to be peddling nebulous and wholly subjective value judgements as empirical fact.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 1) by SandRider on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:09PM

        by SandRider (2611) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @06:09PM (#34482)

        "I would bet that with proper use and storage, CDs last through more playings than vinyl (although maybe not last as long time-wise). Or do they have record players that don't physically contact the record now?"

        Yup, they bounce lasers off the groves in order to read the record.

        http://www.elpj.com/ [elpj.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:29PM (#34536)

        >uniqueness of a record (it speaks about its owner).

        That song with the most ticks and pops, probably the one played most. Album 30 years old and looks never played? Very careful person. Etc.

        >I would bet that with proper use and storage, CDs last through more playings than vinyl (although >maybe not last as long time-wise). Or do they have record players that don't physically contact >the record now?

        Of course they do. That does not magically add value. Most people play copies (mp3) most of the time anyway.

        >Eh, like I said...I probably shouldn't have taken the bait. You seem to be peddling nebulous >and wholly subjective value judgements as empirical fact.

        Yes. You are right. Think about what some people pay for a faceted shiny stone. Or for a piece of inert metal.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bucc5062 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:19PM

    by bucc5062 (699) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:19PM (#34364)

    RIAA finally admitted that the current crop of recording artists just plain Suck. "Oh, yeah, it's true", stated one producer. "The amount of work we have to put into propping these kids up is costing us plenty. Thank god for those tech guys, without them we'd have to go back to finding real talent. Now we just find a hot body, the younger the better, slap some audio magic on the mikes, digital overdub to the point where you can't really hear them, and bam...super star.". The producer, who requested anonymity, went on, "It's just that damn MB3...er NP...fuck that digital crap that is screwing us up. It's just too damn good and killing our business model.".

    In an attempt to regain control, RIAA has considered asking their underlings in Congress to pass a law banning all digital media and require sound to be saved back on 8-track tape. "It's the only way we can keep producing this shit...I mean this new class of music to the world and get away with it."

    --
    The more things change, the more they look the same
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:20PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:20PM (#34365)

    Once you sell something, it isn't yours anymore. That means that whoever bought it has the right to sell it again, and you have no legitimate say in that matter.

    They aren't the first industry to try this kind of thing - after all, any situation in which somebody has to pay you for nothing at all is great for you.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 1) by Immerman on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:47PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:47PM (#34382)

      Unless of course all you are selling is a non-transferable license to listen to a particular copy of the music, which the recording industry *really* wants to do. It's only all that legacy BS like the first sale doctrine and the historical trend of selling an actual copy of the music that's screwing up the transition. Why must the public be so hostile to their new business model? [pout]

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JeanCroix on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:07PM

        by JeanCroix (573) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:07PM (#34389)
        Until your hard drive with your 50Gb of mp3s eats itself, at which point suddenly you didn't license them, you bought them. And to replace what you lost, you'll just have to buy them all again. The RIAA will use whichever parts of the buy/license models which happen to benefit them at the moment.
        • (Score: 1) by Immerman on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:56PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:56PM (#35573)

          Well sure. I mean how else are you supposed to get a new copy? Basic copyright makes it illegal for your friend who has a similar collection to make copies for you, only the copyright holder or a distributor with a valid sub-licensing contract can do that. And nothing in your license suggests that the publisher is required to provide free replacements in the case of lost media. For $X you get a license to listen to the music, and a copy with which to exercise that license. But it's a package deal - the only way to get a new copy is to buy a new license as well (or buy from a distributor who records your purchases and allows you to re-download them for free)

          You've got to admit it has a certain evil-genius logic to it. On the plus side their abuses seem to be helping fuel the movement toward independent and alternative publishers, with a little luck they'll collapse under the weight of their own untenable business model and we can finally bid adieu to the crappy "megastar of the month club"

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by gallondr00nk on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:11PM

        by gallondr00nk (392) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:11PM (#34390)

        I was about to point this out - the question here is whether we actually it at all, and I imagine it's a question the record industry would really rather not be answered, in case the "wrong" answer is handed down from the courts.

        I admit there is a certain absurdity in my mind about selling something "second hand" that can be copied for free an infinite number of times. We're not talking a CD or LP here. At the same time, the idea that we don't own our mp3 collection but merely licence it simply because it's a digital format is unappealing as well.

        The alternative I've seen among quite a few artists seems to be a mix of donations and patronage - You charge for the album or work, but everyone knows what you're really doing is just donating, since it's so trivial to find a copy. I'm not saying it's perfect, but at least it's something.

        It seems our current ownership models are completely incapable of adjusting to a post-scarcity situation.

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 22 2014, @03:32PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @03:32PM (#34418)

          The alternative I've seen among quite a few artists seems to be a mix of donations and patronage

          When you look at all the money paid to musicians, here's how musicians make money:
          1. Salaried positions, such as in bands, orchestras, churches, theaters, etc. (29%)
          2. Live performance (28%)
          3. Teaching (22%)
          4. Recording sessions (10%)
          5. Writing / composing (6%)
          6. Recordings (6%)
          7. Merchandise (2%)

          The key thing to notice is how little recordings actually matter to musicians, compared to live acts. That's why MC Frontalot is in the T-shirt business [youtube.com].

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:21PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:21PM (#34394)

        What I'd really want is that everyone who visits a web page I've created pays me a penny - I could make a decent living from that. It's only all that legacy BS like works-for-hire that's screwing up the transition. Why must the public be so hostile to my business model? [pout]

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 1) by opinionated_science on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:23PM

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @02:23PM (#34395)

    I am referring to watermarking, which plays havoc with my car audio system....

    Nevermind that an MP3 might have great audio quality, but minimal artistic content....

  • (Score: 2) by zim on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:50PM

    by zim (1251) on Tuesday April 22 2014, @10:50PM (#34628)
    Really they're just trolls. An irrevelant layer of middlemen with no purpose.

    No matter what they get. What concessions they get. What laws get passed. What hoops people are forced thru.

    It's NEVER going to be enough for the record industry. They will never be happy with any deal they make.

    And they are always wrong. First the cassette was going to destroy their business. Then cds. Then mp3s. They havent been right yet. In fact they just keep raking in more decade after decade. And it's STILL not enough for them.

    So just stop listening to them. Enjoy your music and people will always make more because they enjoy doing it.

    You don't even have to listen to them to write articles about them. "Music industry wants more, heres some made up 'facts' on why." There. Every single story ever summed up.