"Kristin A. Ruhle" wrote:
{snip 'DVD encryption is stupid/noxious'}
> You're talking about video which is something else entirely (designed to
> make stuff incompatible between nations.)
Regions. However - bits is bits, anything digital is copyable and
any attempt to control one form of digital information can be used on
another form of digital information.
> I was talking about *audio CDs.*
Understood.
> Used to be you'd make a casseste copy for your car. Now you can make cd
> copies, and with a cd changer plus CD-R stereo component you can create
> your own "mix" cds. (until they put this encryption shit on them that
> is.)
Yup.
> The CD copy is much more perfect than the tape copy which is why they
> think everybody with a home stereo is gonna become a pirate.
Yup. They are now faced with n-generation copies that are
essentially as good as the originals. This should produce a price
pressure on them to price their material much closer to the cost of
copying and to take advantage of the communication and accounting
abilities of networked computer systems - but instead they are
asserting rights that they frequently purchased for less than their
demonstrated market value.
{snip}
> used to get custom mix CDs from Musicmaker.com before they went out of
> business! They were trying to be *legit* but the damn labels wouldn't
> license anyhthing but old and obscure stuff people didn't want.
Yup. A lot of people believe that that was part of their strategy.
> OK, now
> you can burn your own mix, so the music industry wants to treat you like a
> criminal?
Yes! Which is understandable - after all people making 'mix' tapes
and tapes for their car, etc., is proof that people are not willing
to voluntarily give them every penny of their disposable income. New
media provide an opportunity to increase profits by not allowing that
legal/quasi-legal/'fair use' copying to make the transition to the
new media. People aren't used to asserting rights that they aren't
used to having - which is why the record companies make a point of
trying to draw a distinction between 'copying for personal use' and
'Napster infringing'. (Napster has actually not infringed any
copyrights because Napster has never made a copy. They are only in
trouble because currently the courts interpret copyright law so as to
allow the concept of 'contributory infringement'.)
> I'm hoping they'll set it up so you can make single but not multiple
> copies (multiples would be piracy for p rofit).
Imagine that you want a copy available in your car, available when
you are walking, available on your stereo at home, and at work.
Multiple copies, never (or rarely) in use at the same time - pretty
much legal under current law.
> or put in a portalble player but not upload.
If you can listen to it at all you can upload it.
> I agree (pretty much) that selling or giving it to
> anhotehr person is stealing.
Nope. If it is prohibited by law it is an infringement. For it to be
'stealing' the property has to be removed from its owner. The whole
problem with digital materials is that it is possible for anyone to
make copies without stealing and without a great deal of expense. ("I
didn't steal this officer - I went over to a friends house, copied it
to this disk that I bought from Radio Shack (shows receipt), the
album never left my friend's house. Here, you can call her on my
phone and ask!")
> Still...If I made my own "custom" CD with one
> or two tracks on it from each of ten discs, and gave the disc to a friend
> saying "hey try this sampler," well, to the RIAA that would be
> piracy.
Oh Yes! And of the Very Worst Sort!
> But when a label does the same thing THEMSELVES, they call that
> advertising!
Uh.... You're not supposed to notice that. Or that your friend went
out and purchased 3 of the albums that you copied songs from. No, No,
No! Marketing must be controlled by The Company! How can they compete
in a Free Market(tm) if they are not Free to Control their own
Marketing? How will people know what to think of their products if
they cannot control the message? Marketing must be controlled by the
company - otherwise they are limited to providing people with what
they want, instead of the supposedly-more profitable 'what they
want'.
> (Have they every heard of word of moutH? Or *ear*? People
> want to know a cd is good before they buy it, and often want to here more
> than the one track that gets on the radio.)
<sigh> The RIAA misses the days of 'payola' when all they had to do
to sell more was bribe a few dj's. They learned that when you lose
control of the distribution method you lose control of the
market....they don't want that to happen again.
> Please, take the discussion of DVDs to another thread because audio /=
> video....
uh, the whole point is that it does. It is all 1' and 0's - any kind
of thing that can be done to encrypt/decrypt any digital information
can be used similarly on all digital information. The MPAA is
terrified because they know that what is happening to the RIAA now is
going to happen to them in only a few more years. (and a few years
after that you will be able to run software on your home machine that
will enable you to make any changes you want to any digital film
file. there will be a lot of people who make 'MST3K' and 'Director's
Cuts' of their own....)
cheers,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
