Is all Privacy and Security a Disgrace, too, then?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| CraigMiller Jul 20, 2006 1:59 PM EDT |
I find it very odd that many people in the Free/Open Source software community find open source DRM antithetical to the free/open source ideals. I think it's because people are confused about what it means to to release software (or artistic media, for that matter) as open source, and are mixing their philosophies about free information with their disagreements with how media companies choose to conduct business. First, I should point out that there are a great many open source projects aimed at providing security and privacy. Favorites such as openssl and pgp seem to have been embraced by the open source community with open arms. But really ... should someone who wants to send a secure email and control who can access the information in that email (that's what PGP is for)? Should people be able to submit private information about themselves on a web page and expect that that information will only be accessible to the site that requested the information (that's what HTTPS is for)? Should companies and individuals be able to securely share information during web based transactions (that's what openssl is for)? Presumably, the answer is yes to these questions. I guess that means not all information has to be "free". Some of it can have restricted access. And open source software projects have provided the creators of information with tools that allow them to restrict access to information -- at the creator's discretion. So then, why is it that an artist should not be permitted the same freedoms as an email writer or a online shopper to protect the information that is theirs? Some people want free music and movies. And so they call for the music and movie industry to change their business models. "Give the music away, and charge for concert tickets!" they say. Ok, maybe that's something that needs to happen. But those are business questions, not technology ones. The courts decided that VCRs -- as a technology -- should not be allowed. Why? Because it had both a legitimate and an illegitimate purpose. And you cannot outlaw a technology just because someone could use it in a way that was illegal. Well, perhaps the same is true of DRM. Don't condemn a technology because you don't like how a music or movie company might choose to use it. DRM can be used in security surveillance, to protect sensitive media (including financial, government, etc) and to provide privacy for home movies. (Maybe you don't want everyone to see that movie you shot in your bedroom!) The primary reason that people should be encouraged to release software (and art) as open source is so that other people can be free to learn how it works and build new art and tecnology innovation on top of the works of others. That's the idealism that drives it all (not free music and movies for your listening and viewing pleasure). Open source DRM is just as critical as any other open source technology. In fact, one of the main goals of open source DRM is to promote the use of interoperable open standards for DRM. This will ultimately reduce the amount of friction associated with media consumption. People who argue against DRM because it creates usability headaches when consuming content have a very legitimate complaint -- and those people should welcome the idea of open source and open standard DRM, because it will address their concerns. But most of the people who argue against DRM do so just because they want free music and movies, and these people aren't really understanding the open source ideal. They don't want to get rid of DRM so that they can create dance remixes and use clips of other people's movies inside of their own original content. They just want free stuff. Those people should just go talk the music and movie industry about their business models. And while they're at it, they can argue that "all information should be free", including people's credit card and bank account numbers. Books should be free, too, and authors should make all their money at book signings, right? |
| grouch Jul 20, 2006 2:27 PM EDT |
I find it very odd that there are people who think they can sell the idea of Digital Restrictions Mania by wrapping it in "open source". It does not matter if you reveal the formula for the poison; it's still poison. |
| jimf Jul 20, 2006 2:37 PM EDT |
What grouch said... I also believe that how media companies choose to conduct business has nothing to do with Art, Artists, or anything even close to any Artist's intrests. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 20, 2006 3:19 PM EDT |
You're confusing DRM with privacy and encryption. Here's an explanation I previously posted on Groklaw: Suppose there are four people: Alice, Bob, Carol and Eve. Alice wants to send a message to Bob. Carol is a friend of Bob and Bob would like to tell her about the message as well. Eve is a spy and wants to see what is in the message as well. Encryption: Alice sends an encrypted message to Bob. Because of the encryption, Eve cannot read it. Bob can decypher the message and is free to show it to Carol. If Alice doesn't want Carol to read the message, then she should ask Bob not to show it to Carol, before she sends the message. It's a matter of trust. Alice trusts Bob not to show the message to Carol. DRM: Alice sends a DRMed message to Bob. Eve cannot see it because the DRmed message is also encrypted. Bob cannot show it to Carol, even if Bob wanted to because of the DRM limitations. Alice does *not* trust Bob. She thinks Bob will show the message to Carol, even though she asked him not to. That's all there is to it. With encryption, Bob decides if he will hold his promise to Alice, or if he will show Carol the message. With DRM, Alice decides what Bob can and cannot do. Do you now also see the irony behind the term "trusted computing"? It's not about trust, it's about distrust. They don't trust you so they subvert your computer so they can trust that instead. They give the decryption keys to your computer, but not to you. DRM is not the same as encryption. DRM sits on top of encryption. DRM is the layer that decides wether or not you can use a particular key to decrypt a message for a certain purpose. That's all. |
| grouch Jul 20, 2006 3:36 PM EDT |
The basic idea behind DRM is to seize perpetual, absolute power over some data by its alleged owner. No one else can ever be said to own this data. The data continues to exist only at the whim of the DRM jailer. There is no assurance, ever, of its continued veracity or existence. No law devised under the authority of citizen representation grants the power that DRM usurps. |
| jimf Jul 20, 2006 3:48 PM EDT |
Again I agree... Nice grouch. |
| dinotrac Jul 20, 2006 4:47 PM EDT |
sander - You're confusing disagreement and analogy with ignorance and misunderstanding. |
| jdixon Jul 20, 2006 5:26 PM EDT |
> Well, perhaps the same is true of DRM. Don't condemn a technology because you don't like how a music or movie company might choose to use it. Oh, don't worry, I don't. I condemn it because, as it's currently used, it serves absolutely no useful purpose to those who purchase the product. Anyone who wants to DRM their product should be free to do so, but in anything resembling a free market, their product will be eradicated by any competition which doesn't. They should also realize that the very customers they are trying to sell the product to will break said DRM at the earliest possible moment, and feel no guilt about doing so. After all, they paid for the poduct, in their minds there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to use it as they see fit. Using DRM is a stupid decision which sets you against your own customers. That's more than enough reason to condemn it. |
| dinotrac Jul 20, 2006 5:49 PM EDT |
>Oh, don't worry, I don't. I condemn it because, as it's currently used, it serves absolutely no useful purpose to those who purchase the product. I think a counter argument could be made -- though I don't like it. In my view, the concept of DRM isn't offensive. But then, the concept of Marxism isn't offensive, either. Trouble is, in the real world, we don't get to run (or live under) the concept. We have to make do with possible implementations. If DRM could actually protect an artist's rights while preserving the bundle of rights I expect to have when buying a book, then maybe there would be a place for it. After all, artists got to eat. A technology that let an artist make an honest living while providing music/video/etc that I enjoyed would, in fact, be providing me with a valuable service by making entertainment available to me that might not otherwise be feasible. But DRM isn't able to do that without crapping all over my rights. It's not a trade I want to make. |
| grouch Jul 20, 2006 6:05 PM EDT |
dinotrac: You have the right to feed my greed. What more could you possibly want? |
| dinotrac Jul 20, 2006 6:08 PM EDT |
grouch: I don't know. How's your singing? |
| grouch Jul 20, 2006 6:17 PM EDT |
Well, the dogs no longer growl about it, but one tries to howl in harmony. I trust our friendly, neighborhood Marine's instincts on this one: "It's a disgrace that Free/Open Source Software users embrace the idea of restricting freedom this way." The name of the project looks a bit off. They seem to have transposed the "I" and the first "P" in OpenIPMP. |
| jimf Jul 20, 2006 6:36 PM EDT |
> After all, artists got to eat. A technology that let an artist make an honest living while providing music/video/etc that I enjoyed would, in fact, be providing me with a valuable service by making entertainment available to me that might not otherwise be feasible. I repeat, how media companies choose to conduct business ( in this case use of DRM) has nothing to do with Art, Artists, or anything even close to any Artist's intrests. Look at a creative commons license if you want to support the Artist. |
| grouch Jul 20, 2006 7:29 PM EDT |
jimf: It was worth repeating. The publishers want DRM so that they can milk every penny they can from a work, in perpetuity. They would like to rent each sensory perception; DRM is the metering valve. |
| jimf Jul 20, 2006 7:59 PM EDT |
> The publishers want DRM so that they can milk every penny they can from a work, in perpetuity. true, and the majority of Artists (except for a tiny %) rarely gets a significant cut of that. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 20, 2006 9:22 PM EDT |
"If DRM could actually protect an artist's rights while preserving the bundle of rights I expect to have when buying a book, then maybe there would be a place for it.
After all, artists got to eat. A technology that let an artist make an honest living while providing music/video/etc that I enjoyed would, in fact, be providing me with a valuable service by making entertainment available to me that might not otherwise be feasible.
But DRM isn't able to do that without crapping all over my rights. It's not a trade I want to make." Is it a problem with the tool, then, or the implementation? After all, relying on the honesty of humans is usually a loser strategy. With printed books the barrier to copyright infringement is high; it costs a lot in equipment and labor to print and sell books. When cassette tapes and VCRs were all we had to copy music, movies, and TV programming, again it was self-limiting. Perfect for personal use, but not easy to mass-produce and re-sell. Now with digital media and the Internet these barriers are gone. In that sense the MAFIAA are right- it's very easy to reproduce and re-sell stuff, or just pass it around for free to your 10,000 closest friends. I don't think ripping a song and posting it for unlimited downloads constitutes fair use. Yes, it's nice to share- with physical media like a book, or a CD, or any object that folks like to borrow, like lawnmowers and tools and cups of sugar, only one person can use it at a time. The ability to make zillions of copies for virtually free is a whole different ballgame. This site tells a bit more about it: http://objectlab.com/clients/openipmp/index.htm. I don't know what to think of it yet. But if it's a way to for individuals to get control of their own stuff, that seems to me to be a good thing. |
| salparadise Jul 20, 2006 9:27 PM EDT |
I have to admit to being slightly confused about DRM.
If I can see text on my screen and I know it is protected by DRM yet want to pass it on, what is to stop me from doing Ctrl A, Ctrl C, Ctrl V into a new blank document? Or a straight screen dump for that matter? Same goes for a music CD. So I "can't copy it". Yes I can. It may be a little harder or take a few extra steps but I can make a copy of it. The whole DRM thing, apart from being a divisive, nasty, paranoid scheme (thus revealing the mindset of those who created it) is fatally flawed because it presumes everyone will want to take the shortest, easiest route possible to copy something and it presumes people are not capable of thinking. DRM was not created to protect artists but to attempt to "protect" an industry who whines like no other yet makes profits that most industries can only dream of. To share information is to risk it being shared beyond the original sharers wishes. Get over it. We are all here together on this planet and we should be looking for new ways to share not new ways to lock each other out. Enough of the "everyman is a market or a pirate" crap already. |
| jimf Jul 20, 2006 9:39 PM EDT |
> DRM was not created to protect artists but to attempt to "protect" an industry who whines like no other yet makes profits that most industries can only dream of. Exactly sal. I'm not sure what the answer to protection of the Artists rights is, but I know that it isn't DRM. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 20, 2006 10:10 PM EDT |
Quoting: If I can see text on my screen and I know it is protected by DRM yet want to pass it on, what is to stop me from doing Ctrl A, Ctrl C, Ctrl V into a new blank document? Or a straight screen dump for that matter? What do you think things like "protected media path" are all about? Any application that lets you view the DRM'ed content will not let you copy/paste it out of there (if we're lucky, it will let you copy/paste to another DRM application, but the DRM will tag along with it). They are also trying to close the analogue hole. An example: As soon as you plug in a non-DRM'ed device to your DRM DVD player, the player will revert to regular TV quality instead of HD quality. Same goes for sound. Making a screen dump with a DRM image on it will either show up a black box, or scrambled conteny. Etcetera. |
| dcparris Jul 20, 2006 11:35 PM EDT |
I was a victim of "DRM" before it became a buzzword. My wife and daughter bought me two CDs, and a portable CD player for Christmas several years ago. One CD played, but the other didn't. I popped what I thought was a goofed-up CD into a non-mobile CD player, and discovered that it played just fine. When I asked a guy at work about it, he said some CDs no longer play in some players, especially if the players allow playing of MP3s. So I couldn't play the CD I owned (paid for by wife/daughter) in the CD player I owned (also paid for by wife and daughter). So now I'm confused. Just how much money was the artist - or for that matter - the publisher losing on this stupid CD I couldn't play? It's really quite funny. I have not personally purchased a single CD since - and that was @ 1999. Prior to that, I purchased CDs and cassettes on a fairly regular basis. My guess is that the artists and publishers have lost between $400-$600 over the last 6 years from me alone. Multiply something like that by the number of other disgruntled customers, and see how much the industry is losing to their own stupidity. |
| tuxchick2 Jul 20, 2006 11:47 PM EDT |
Ok, but still the question remains- "Is it a problem with the tool, then, or the implementation?" |
| dcparris Jul 21, 2006 12:02 AM EDT |
TC, the digital age has brought about one of those disruptive technology thingy issues. At any rate, just as software development companies are having to learn to adjust to the FOSS business model, so the entertainment industry will need to adjust to a Libre entertainment business model. I highly recommend Lawrence Lessig's book, "Free Culture". Picture the entertainment industry as the "Causbys" of "Free Culture". Essentially, digitization is scaring their chickens. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 21, 2006 12:54 AM EDT |
TC: Ultimately, its a problem with the MAFIAA business model. Here's a nice report on El Reg from 2004: How the music biz can live forever, get even richer, and be loved http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/23/orlowski_interactive... It sets out the problem quite well and shows that for around $5 per broadband connection per month, the MAFIAA would be guaranteed of bucketloads of steady, predictable and continuous income forever, and everyone could share as much music and movies as they'd like. (I wish El Reg still published top notch stuff like this these days....) |
| dinotrac Jul 21, 2006 1:29 AM EDT |
tuxchick - I think part of your answer comes from the constant need for DRM opponents to trot out the old "it's not about protecting artists, but feeding the greed of record/movie/publishing companies" canard." That deflection tells you immediately that an underlying good thing is at stake. All this talk about artists being ripped of by record companies is a way of saying, "It's ok if I rip off artists. After all, the record companies are doing it, too." The problem with that is the way it ignores some important truths. First and foremost, record companies have exploited artists because they could. They could because they controlled the means of production and distribution. The digital revolution has made it possible to do high-quality production work for a fraction of the old costs. Likewise, the internet makes distribution possible for a much lower price than it ever was before. Better still, the internet makes low-volume distribution and sale possible. That should free armies of artists who are not in the million seller category to sell their work and, possibly, to make a living. It won't, however, so long as it's ok to rip off artists. Unfortunately, ripping off artists appears to be acceptable to most people. |
| grouch Jul 21, 2006 5:03 AM EDT |
tuxchick2: The problem is the concept. DRM puts perpetual, absolute control over data into the hands of whoever holds the key to the DRM. DRM eliminates the need for such a puny, time-limited thing as copyright law. Visit Project Gutenberg for an example of what the public domain stands to lose. DRM facilitates vanishing evidence. "Paper trails" are mostly email or other digital data trails, now. DRM allows these trails to simply disappear at the owner's whim. Accepting DRM, that is, accepting the idea that anyone can perpetually and absolutely control all access to digital data, is to accept the idea that "intellectual property" is of a higher order of ownership than real estate or even life. |
| SFN Jul 21, 2006 5:27 AM EDT |
To the OP:Quoting:So then, why is it that an artist should not be permitted the same freedoms as an email writer or a online shopper to protect the information that is theirs? I am unaware of a case of a single artist who has DRM'd their work. The only people applying DRM technology to works of art are the people who are trying to make money off of the artists' work. The same people who drive up the production costs associated with disseminating the artists' work then add their percentage in on top of that inflated cost. Addressing the music business, over the years people seem to have forgotten what purpose recorded music is supposed to serve. It's supposed to be a promotional tool. One designed to get the public to spend money on seeing the artist in concert. It's an ad. In the end, record companies are little more than advertising agencies only they've figured out a way to make the ad appear to be the product. In doing so, they've devised a scheme that 1) makes their customer (the artist) create the ad for them, 2) makes their customer (the artist) pay to have the ad created and 3) makes the customer's customer (the record buying public) pay to be allowed the privilege of being exposed to the ad. Sorry but my heart does not bleed for the record companies. |
| dinotrac Jul 21, 2006 5:51 AM EDT |
TC: >Sorry but my heart does not bleed for the record companies. See what I mean? |
| SFN Jul 21, 2006 6:02 AM EDT |
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't lump me in with the "it's ok to rip off artists" crowd. It's not OK to rip off artists. People who download music are not ripping off artists. Record companies are ripping off artists. People who download music are ripping off record companies. Again, my heart doesn't bleed for them. Just so I don't get tossed back into that pile, I stopped partaking of new major label music a while back. Anything I aquire now is independent stuff. And yes, I pay for it. |
| dinotrac Jul 21, 2006 6:23 AM EDT |
SFN - Sorry to do the lumping, but I consider the argument dishonest. And...going with my original premise, which is not so much a nod to DRM technology as it is to the idea of a DRM that worked in a fair and equitable way... It still frosts my cookies that the internet and digital technology have the potential to set artists free from the people who exploit them today. It also has the potential to shower us with high quality professionally done works that lie out of the pop tart, gangsta, country-crossover and "Hat act" categories. The full potential will be realized if there is a reasonable way for artists to get paid without having to sell their souls to the record companies, presuming the labels are even interested in acts that sell in the hundreds or thousands instead of millions. Every time somebody deflects the question of artist rights, they are, in effect, supporting the status quo and defending the predators. |
| SFN Jul 21, 2006 6:48 AM EDT |
That's the thing; DRM isn't about artists' rights. It should be but it isn't. DRM was not created for the purpose of supporting artists and it is not used as a method of supporting artists. You're right about the ability of new technology to set artists free. It already has for a few but it hasn't for most because most artists are not going down that path. They should but they're not. As far as the reasonable way for artists to get paid, there are a few. CDBaby and Magnatune come to mind. CDBaby and the like allow the artists to just sell their wares. Magnatune is more of a formal label but one that doesn't gouge anybody. The piece missing from this equation is radio stations that will play independent stuff. ACTUAL radio station are pretty much out. They're really just part of the record company scheme. Net radio is getting better about promoting indie stuff but it's going to be a while before that really takes off. |
| theboomboomcars Jul 21, 2006 6:52 AM EDT |
With any luck the artists will forsake the recording companies and start their own distribution through the internet. They will actually be able to make money, and have control over their own music, rather than selling it to the recording companies for fractions of pennies on the dollar. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2006 6:59 AM EDT |
> Ok, but still the question remains- "Is it a problem with the tool, then, or the implementation?" The tool. It cannot be made to do what the artist needs, which is provide a revenue stream from their work, without alienating the customers the artists needs to provide that revenue stream. There is not implementation way around this. Allow me to blather on here for a bit. This isn't really thought out in detail. There are three critical principles involved here, and the balance between them is the problem. One, a person should be paid for the service they provide (in this case, a story, song, picture, or movie). Two, once you pay for that product you own it and can do with it as you please. Three, and one that most people fail to mention, it's OK to share such product as long as you don't make money for yourself doing so. Point three has always been the historical norm and intuitively seems right to most people (at least as far as I can tell). If you're making money from sharing the product, then you're depriving the provider of their fair pay, but if you give it away you're not. Very few people have a problem with number one and almost no one is willing to give up number two. Number three never used to be a problem, as sharing a book, album, or movie was possible but difficult, and making copies was even harder. If you could afford it, it was almost always easier to buy your own copy. With the advent of digital copies and the Internet, sharing has gotten so easy that you can now share with thousands or even millions of people rather than the tens or so that used to be possible, and it's often easier to download a copy than it is to find one to buy. So, what we want is a way to reconcile one and three without removing two. As far as I can see, DRM can't be made to do that, as it's often impossible to distinguish between two and three. Once I've purchased the product, in theory I'm allowed as may copies as I need for my own personal (and possibly for my family's) use. For me. taking a song as an example, I need a minimun of one for home, one for work, one for the car, and one archival. That's four, what if I own two or three homes, or two or more portable players? The numbers can add up quickly. DRM can't distinguish between this and giving copies to 6 or 7 of my friends, can't allow for changes in technology which obsolete one format and require changing to another, doesn't allow for the loss or damage of media, doesn't allow for fair use modifications, etc., etc., ad nauseum. As far as I can tell, what we need is either an agreed upon method for compensating the providers in spite of massive sharing, or a societal tool for limiting such sharing to it's proper role. Legal limitations on sharing won't really work, as the law is too blunt an instrument for such fine work, and people are always willing to break a law they think is wrong (remember that most people think sharing for free is right), especially if there's a low probability of getting caught. As Sander notes, the Register is one of the few places which has publicized one possible compromise to the matter, though I think their price per connection is too high. When broadband goes for $15-40/month, a $5 tax seems excessive. Someting like $1.50-$2.00 seems more reasonable, and dialup users should probably be exempt. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2006 7:02 AM EDT |
> CDBaby and Magnatune come to mind. Emusic also sounds good, though I haven't checked them out myself, merely heard of them. |
| grouch Jul 21, 2006 8:14 AM EDT |
jdixon: >"Someting like $1.50-$2.00 seems more reasonable, and dialup users should probably be exempt." The concept is arguably a low-evil compromise, but the proposed tax seems excessive and too broadly applied. It presumes everyone who has broadband routinely engages in copying commercially restricted, copyright-protected files. Why should the MAFIAA be guaranteed profit and existence? Why should they be guaranteed, by tax and government mandate, to remain the financial representative and arbiter of payment distributions for artists? My own purchases of DVDs and CDs has all but dried up, from a high of between $2k and $3k per year, 'way back before I learned of the MAFIAA's dirty tricks. I don't download such things, either. (Even if I thought it was ok, it would be impractical; took me 3 days to get the latest OOo). There are artists who are recognizing the benefits of dealing fairly with customers. I hope we don't give in to the propaganda and dirty tricks of the MAFIAA during this transition period. Let's not perpetuate the cartels and extend their power, under the guise of dealing fairly with artists. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2006 8:56 AM EDT |
> The concept is arguably a low-evil compromise, but the proposed tax seems excessive and too broadly applied. It presumes everyone who has broadband routinely engages in copying commercially restricted, copyright-protected files. Yes, it does. I don't like it either, but it does at least seem viable. Of course, the RIAA could offer such a deal themselves. Sign up for $3 per month with the RIAA and download all the music you want from the P2P networks without fear of being sued. Hmm, sounds a lot like paying protection money, doesn't it? |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2006 9:00 AM EDT |
> I don't download such things, either. I'm in the process of trying to convert my vinyl stuff into digitial format, and now that I have broadband I'm not adverse to downloading copies of stuff I've already paid for. The RIAA doesn't recognize this as legitimate, of course. |
| grouch Jul 21, 2006 10:11 AM EDT |
jdixon: My peak spending on CDs was when I was trying to get equivalents for all my vinyl. That was quite a few years ago and I never finished before reading news of the MAFIAA's attacks on Napster users. (As an aside, I always considered the original Napster to be an unauthorized publisher, since they had ads, but those users who only downloaded seemed to me to be no different than people at a party listening to the same music. Of course, for downloads to take place, someone has to offer the file. That's the controversial part, IMO.) I've converted quite a few of my old vinyl records to oggs, but it's a slow, time-consuming process. If not for the excellent work by the developers of gramofile, the process wouldn't be worth the trouble. The problem with digital copies is that they can be exactly the same quality as the original, which removes the incentive to obtain the original from the artists' authorized publisher. An artist has the right to select a publisher. A publisher does not have the right to tamper with customers' property. I think that most people would support a system where they pay for artist-approved quality. While the MAFIAA continues to ensure that what you buy in shrink-wrap is a lower value, due partly to the possibility of it damaging your equipment via root-kits and other DRM attacks, there is not much chance of stemming free downloading. The artificially maintained pricing is just another negative incentive. |
| Teron Jul 21, 2006 1:31 PM EDT |
The only real way to cut down on downloading and increase sales is, IMHO, the eMusic way. What is the eMusic way? It's the way of mp3's. Due to them offering mp3's, no DRM is currently possible. You buy the file, you can do with whatever you want with it. It's the way of high-quality, VBR mp3's. And, it is also the way of $0.25 a song. So, it's high-quality, doesn't kill the user's freedoms (I know, I know. They should have .oggs available, too), and is cheap as chips. This way, as long as the buyers know the artists get a fair share of the profits, you have the perfect solution. Of course, there are people who would still download - the only incentive for them is to get stuff for free. Then there's those who don't agree with current CD pricing but are willing to pay for their music. Those would more than likely be converted. The third type are people who download just because it's so convenient. If this eMusic-style service was convenient like that, they'd more than likely use it. The ones who currently buy CDs would probably move over. There's only one customer type left who wouldn't be content. The customer who wants the lyrics booklets and durable factory-printed discs. (And I think even those could be accommodated by the use of Canonical-style mass orders) The key is making buying music cheap, and the terms of the deal fair. Then you just make it clear that your ability to get new stuff like that depends on the ability of the guys who make the stuff to make a living off it. The human tendencies of morality and greed should do the rest. (Greed as in wnating more music, not necessarily resenting paying for it) |
| grouch Jul 21, 2006 2:04 PM EDT |
Teron: Change that mp3 to ogg and I'll buy some. :o) BTW, I'll bet I'm not the only one who remembers a quarter buying 6 plays on a jukebox. |
| dcparris Jul 21, 2006 2:57 PM EDT |
> BTW, I'll bet I'm not the only one who remembers a quarter buying 6 plays on a jukebox. You must be really old! :-D I think now it's 6 quarters for one play. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 21, 2006 3:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:jdixon: >"Someting like $1.50-$2.00 seems more reasonable, and dialup users should probably be exempt." They won't. If the above scheme happens, tyhe MAFIAA will be nothing more than an organisation to divvy up the levy. Their power over artists will go down drastically. With a levy scheme there's no added valua from the MAFIAA because distribution happens outside their control. The only differentiating factor between bistribution companies will be how high the cut for the artists is. That's all. Guess where the artists will go :-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!