| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
WMP users 'wish' for better DRM, wider takeup of WMA | |
|
||
| Time: 14:27 EST/19:27 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
In ExtremeTech, the redoubtable Mark Hachman has unearthed Microsoft's "Windows Media Wish," where apparently users' wishes for future versions of Windows Media Player come true. But seeing the list of successful wishes has been around since March 25th,* and anyway we think Mark either missed something or was too deeply ironic for us, we're doing it too. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 182 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:27:37 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/2/2002 3:18:57 PM |
|
I know this is a touchy subject for some, but I really don't believe the stated intentions of most that are against DRM. I have no doubt that for most, it boils down to that they were getting a "free lunch" of whatever music they wanted back in the heyday of Napster and the like, and since now that day may come to an end, they're upset. In a way, those folks have sealed their own fate--by so freely and illegally trading copywrited material, they forced someone to act to stop this.
I used to play in a blues band for about three years while I was in college. In fact, it paid for my last year of tuition (but just barely). We used to make our money by playing gigs (mostly as the house band at one club) and selling CDs. We'd sell maybe 4 or 5 CDs a night. All 4 of us in the group were just about broke, so split 4 ways at $15/CD, the CD sales would pay for our vehicle expenses for the week. Imagine what it was like, then, to have someone come up and tell you, "Hey, I love the new CD of you guys! Yeah, I burned a copy from a friend of mine--I love it!" Thanks a lot, buddy... why not just take a $20 bill out of my pocket??? I realize that most of the copying going on is for larger name groups that may be doing quite well, money-wise. However, the point is that, for one, most people don't even think it's wrong--that it's not stealing. Even for the artists that are raking in the money, how does it make it right to steal from them? Is there something that makes it OK to steal from someone with $200 in their wallet and not ok to steal from someone with $20? Percentage-wise, Santana or Creed probably lost just as much money due to casual copying as our group did... probably even more. I think it's just as wrong to steal from them as it was to steal from my group... it's all stealing. |
| #2 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 10/2/2002 3:23:51 PM |
|
Agreed. BUT we are a napster generation that have been lulled to sleep (morally) by free music, free movies (kazaa), and even free porn.
When you can indulge with just the click of a mouse, it easily becomes "less wrong". |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/2/2002 3:48:03 PM |
|
Why do people forget the "other" group. Yes, the "real" pirates can steal the pants off anybody now a days, but law enforcement should try to go after them for committing crimes.
Even when Napster was at its height and the most surprising newbies, non-techies, etc.. were visiting, there was still a much larger segment of the pop that would never really steal music. Some don't do it for ethical reasons, a lot don't do it because they want the packaging, the satisfaction of actually owning what they like, a larger group don't do it because they are too lazy, too non-geek to care to figure out how to do it, etc.. What they would do however and what I believe should be a right of the consumer is: they would make a digi-copy of THEIR music for their home computer, their work computer, etc...; they would make album copies or compilations for friends and family--for real... REAL friends and family... Yes, I copy MY music, etc... but I don't go out and distribute it to everyone... I give and share it with my friends and family, the people that I want to share MY music, etc... with, the people I am willing to take the time to do this for. This behavior isn't illegal. And it doesn't hurt the copyright owners--it actually promotes their product. I have "given" copyrighted material to other people (but only people I would bother to make the effort for) but I have also paid for 99.5% of the music, content, etc.. that I possess. Any effort that infringes on me to continue my behavior because the gov't and/or recording industries are too lazy to actually police and investigate the criminals (so they want to prevent any possible action whether legal or illegal before it happens) I will oppose. |
| #4 By 1896 (208.61.158.5) at 10/2/2002 3:52:18 PM |
| #1 As I stated before I have no problem to buy CDs or, even better buy music online, download it on a computer and burn a CD. The problem is not DRM as a concept, the problem is the way this concept is implemented: if I buy a CD I believe I have the right to copy one or more pieces on another CD with other pieces from other artists to listen to all togethher in my car. I don't want to be limited to listen that CD, as it is, in the computer I used to burn it. I could give you more examples but I don't think is needed. If the music industries will be able to pass laws that will not allow you to play the music you BOUGHT, in a reasonable and fair way, well I will just stp buying, I am 45 years old, I saw the biggest artists live in concert and I have enough albums to play. |
| #5 By 1896 (208.61.158.5) at 10/2/2002 3:52:26 PM |
|
Doble posting, sorry. This post was edited by Fritzly on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 at 15:53. |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/2/2002 3:52:33 PM |
|
The cost of the CD media itself is not the only cost in producing a CD. It's a fairly small portion.
I agree in some respects, though--it would be nice if the music industry brought CD prices down to a more reasonable range--maybe $9.99-$12.99? The only problem is that for smaller pressings, you have to sell at a higher price to make up for pre-production/recording/mixing/editing/post-production/etc. costs. Recording is VERY, VERY expensive (even for small acts, if they record in a semi-pro or better studio), and you have to sell a lot of CDs to make up for those costs. $15 was reasonable in our case. It's a bummer to go to the store and pay $17.99 for bigger acts, though. Hmmm... one reason I don't do a lot of it. But, I'm not going to pirate because of the high prices, though. I'll just buy less, or not at all. If the prices fall because of pressure--from not buying, not from pirating--great. But I have no inherent "right" to listen to the music, so if I can't afford it or don't want to afford it, then I will have to settle with not having it. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/2/2002 4:02:15 PM |
| Morindin, mayne you should like better music; or maybe the recording industry should get off its ass and make better albums, stop blaming pirating and realize their own complete lack of quality. My purchase habits are just the opposite: I never buy compilations because if the artist is actually good enough for a best of, they better have 3-4 really good albums in my mind. |
| #8 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/2/2002 4:06:19 PM |
|
Sodajerk, I applaud you for not pirating music for your own collection. However, giving copies--whether a compilation/mix or an outright copy from CD to CD--of music to your friends IS illegal. It's the same example that I mentioned of the guy coming up to us and telling us that he burned a copy of our group's CD from a friend of his. He certainly wasn't going to buy our CD after having his own burned copy.
Fritzly, I agree with you--the CD that you buy/download should be able to be played as you please, whether it's in your car, on your computer, in your portable CD player, etc. Everything that I've seen in Windows Media Player allows you to do just that. Am I missing something? It helps you copy the music to your PC or portable device (in WMA format or mp3 format, if you want to purchase the software license to do so), but you can still take the CD out of your PC and play it in your car. |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/2/2002 4:17:58 PM |
|
Sodajerk (#10)--I just don't understand your argument at all. "Maybe the recording industry should... make better albums... and realize their own complete lack of quality." While I might be inclined to agree in some ways :), this is like saying, "Picasso, you should paint better," or, "Da Vinci, you should paint something that I'll like." If you have your own idea of what good music is, why don't you go out and write some yourself? That's what I intend to do. But don't expect for some reason that other artists are going to cater to your tastes. Now, if you had an issue with the actual recording quality or production standards, that I could understand, although I think the state of audio quality and fidelity is as high as it ever has been in high-end studios.
The recording industry ends up shaping societal tastes sometimes (which is sad), but on the whole, people will choose what they want to hear. "Good bands" survive because their music sells (and usually you'll see a whole bunch of copycat bands follow suit). You should complain not to the recording industry if you don't hear what you want to hear as much as to the people that buy the CDs in the first place. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/2/2002 4:20:23 PM |
| bluvg, no it is not illegal. And it's that sentiment that I oppose. That's like saying lending someone a book is illegal. Listening to an album over someone's house is illegal, etc... And actually, when I have made CDs generally it has resulted in the recipient purchasing more CDs.. either of the artist(s) on the burned disk or just generally getting them into music more. The idea that copyright producers could exist anywhere in the world where their product was 100% licensed is ridiculous--the day that is true is the same day you can no longer sell such a product; every artist, etc... is, has been, and always will be dependent on the free dissemination of their material--either at their own hands or their audience's--in conjunction with selling it. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/2/2002 4:25:48 PM |
|
bluvg, Morindin, it was a JOKE. Please, get with it... it's called sarcasm. But I think in fact, it is an illustrative joke... If people have gotten to the point where they only like one or two songs on an album, those are crappy albums. I don't see how that can be disagreed with--whether or not, I know yourr tastes, etc... If a band/artist puts out a 10-20 track album with 1 good song and sells the album for 14.00 and expects to make money--they are sadly mistaken, it's a shitty album, by any standard, no matter the style or the tastes of the creator and audience. The industry is to focused on generating franchises, generating singles... Personally, I have over 700 CDs and see no end to the number of albums that I wish to own. I'm not complaining for myself--I'm saying that if you are the type of person who's in this position--it's a silly one. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 at 16:33. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/2/2002 4:29:59 PM |
|
"this is like saying, "Picasso, you should paint better," or, "Da Vinci, you should paint something that I'll like.""
No, it's not--these are high quality artists. It is like saying, that the bum of a portrait artist on the street would make moe money if he was a better artist. (Not inherently true--the best art often doesn't have an audience--but at the same time hard to disagree with, particularly when you are talking about something with a commercial bent to it--quality sells, lack of it doesn't.) For example, the RIAA blames piracy for a 19% decline in sales.. well, guess what, almost every industry experienced such a decline this year... And how many years do people want to keep listening to N'SYN, Britney, et al? It was a crappy year in music; blame yourselves RIAA! This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 at 16:35. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/2/2002 4:41:23 PM |
| bluvg, do you really think it's illegal to make a copy of music and give it to your mother or someone? That's sad. This is in fact FAIR USE; fair use doesn't have just to do with the ability of the original purchaser to play the content wherever they maybe--it also has to do with the fact that you are now the OWNER of the content as well (although not the owner of the rights to distribute it). It's been determined that sharing, the giving/sharing (i.e. can't do it if you are selling it) of the content is the right of the owner insofar as it doesn't interfere with the copyrights owener's ability to distribute it. The courts determined that sharing within a small community (friends, family) is actually condusive to CR holder's economic circumstances rather than detrimental, and wholly within the rights of the OWNER of the content. |
| #14 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 10/2/2002 4:44:03 PM |
|
How about NO DRM ?
Problem solved :) TL |
| #15 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 10/2/2002 4:46:33 PM |
|
"I have no doubt that for most, it boils down to that they were getting a "free lunch" of whatever music they wanted back in the heyday of Napster and the like, and since now that day may come to an end, they're upset. In a way, those folks have sealed their own fate--by so freely and illegally trading copywrited material, they forced someone to act to stop this. "
You are EVER so wrong... I don't have a single pirated mp3 on my system, and I am firmly against DRM, Palladium or whatever other "Let's control the users" crap they come up with. It's MY computer. I will do whatever I damned well please with materials that I have purchased for my OWN personal use. It's all about controlling people, and I'm totally against that. TL |
| #16 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 10/2/2002 4:49:08 PM |
|
"Part of the problem is that the music industry has not kept up with the economy of music. Even though the cost to produce a CD today is extremely cheap, music CD are more expensive than they were 10 years ago. I can often buy a DVD movie for less money that I can buy a music CD. I only very rarely buy CD's (but I do buy alot of DVDs). But nor do I pirate CD's.
I think that music industry is facing problems because their product is too expensive. If you could buy a typical music CD for less than $5.00, I might start buying again. " Absolutely agreed, Rob. I too rarely buy CD's any longer. Like you, I do buy a lot of DVD's. I have around 320 in my Library at present. DVD's provide, IMHO, a considerably better value for the dollar than CD's do. $15+ for CD's is pure insanity, especially since the cost of the technology was amortized what, 15 years ago? TL |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/2/2002 4:56:09 PM |
|
Phaedrus, I don't see what point you are making or the need to reply, but I will say that I was trying to make a point devoid of taste, styles. But if you are of a certain taste though, but still only like one track on a CD, it's a crappy CD... don't see how difficult that is! Don't see that as being subjective on my part. That's the initial point.
The second point is, no matter what the style, taste, quality is a factor; it may be transient and untenable, but quality of many forms does affect your success, failure. An industry has no right to expect growth or maintaining a certain position if it doesn't maintain the same level of quality or improve it. (I'm not saying this as an absolute answer, but I think it's undeniable as well.) |
| #18 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 10/2/2002 4:56:13 PM |
|
"bluvg, do you really think it's illegal to make a copy of music and give it to your mother or someone? That's sad. This is in fact FAIR USE"
Hmmm.... I don't think I can agree with that one. Now, if you were to loan your mother your ORIGINAL, then that would be fair use. Fair Use, in it's simplest term, is the right to use a product, that you paid for, in any way you wish for your OWN personal use. Making a duplicate copy for someone else isn't your own personal use. TL |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/2/2002 5:00:33 PM |
| No, Tech, check it out--you do realize that the whole elucidation of fair use came about because of cassette recording... Do you actually think that the monument which is Fair Use, however abused that term is, said it was illegal to make a mix tape for your girlfriend?No. This is legal, and something that a lot of people have lost sight of. It was determined that the form of distribution that didn't attempt to gain a profit was generally small and personal and did not constitute a threat to copyrights, it actually benefitted them so this is exactly why FAIR USE rights were outlined. |
| #20 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 10/2/2002 5:57:29 PM |
|
jerk - "No, it's not--these are high quality artists." Were they considered high quality artists when they were alive? So, until they are deemed "high quality", its ok to rip them off? NO WAY.
And everybody needs to stop thinking about the cost of a CD being comprised mainly of technology and a plastic disk. The reality is that Madonna, Maria Carey, and N'Sync are getting MILLIONS. And they SHOULD... if the market is willing to pay for it. And by the MILLIONS of CDs sold by these artists... I guess the market IS willing to pay for it. Don't you worry your pretty little heads about the music industry and artists. They will do just fine. You think they don't do focus groups determining the PERFECT amount to charge for a CD? Of course they do. If they charge $15, they estimate they can sell 1M and make $15M. If they charge $20, they estimate they can sell 500K and make $10M. If they charge $10, they estimate they can sell 1.4M and make $14M. THAT is how PRICE is detemined. Same way its determined in the majority of markets. I see this time and again, where people say "Office XP is overpriced" or ".mac is overpriced". They are NOT overpriced. Sure, you can criticize their featureset and make fun of anyone willing to give good money for something silly... but you can't easily question PRICE. http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/economic/marketing_manual/principles/mp_m3.html EDIT - added link This post was edited by mooresa56 on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 at 18:01. |
| #21 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/2/2002 6:03:15 PM |
|
So, Sodajerk, you think it's ok that the fellow that copied our group's CD from his friend? Gee, thanks a lot... here's my wallet, why don't you take a few $20s yourself as long as your at it?
Please post for us the relevant Fair Use rights... from my reading of CD copyrights, you DO NOT have the right to make copies of the CD and freely distribute them to your friends as long as you are not profitting. If you lend them the CD for them to listen, that might be different... but copying the CD and giving it to them??? I find it very hard to believe that is covered by Fair Use--please post for us the actual law on that, if you believe otherwise. And you took the bait on the Picasso and Da Vinci arguments... you said "these are high-quality artists." Ah, but soooo many artists were not regarded as such in their day. Riots erupted during the debut of Stravinksi's Right of Spring, Saint Saens thought Berlioz was an idiot, people were greatly disturbed by Beethoven opening a symphony with a chord other than the tonic of stated key, etc. Just because they aren't highly regarded or liked today doesn't mean that their talent won't be appreciated tomorrow. Granted, I highly doubt that with Brittney and N'Sync, etc., but those types of acts have always existed, and there are other artists out there that aren't all bubble gum and models marketed as musicians. And TechLarry--I said that "for most [I even emphasized it...], it boils down to that they were getting a 'free lunch'." I know there are exceptions--you are one of them. I used to work at a place where I would end up having to trace Napster installations, and there was not one person that was buying the music separately from what they had downloaded. To protect the rights/living of folks like me and other artists, I think some sort of DRM is necessary. Maybe not the MS implementation... but something. Are you guys trying to ignore the fact that so many people are copying/trading music for free, and illegally? You aren't trying to convince us that this really isn't happening, are you? I don't care necessarily that you don't do it--good for you! But please, don't kid yourself that there aren't people out there that are doing it, and that there should be some way of enforcing the law. What effective alternative method of enforcing the law do you suggest? |
| #22 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 10/2/2002 6:36:17 PM |
|
Rob Cannon wrote, "music CD are more expensive than they were 10 years ago." and I see a number of others who are following the same veign.
The fact is, this isn't true. 10 years ago CDs were $16-17. Today they are $13-14. Besides, why do people think the only cost of making software is the reproduction of the CDs? Recording costs are up, marketing costs are up, distribution costs are up, and the value of the contacts with the artists are also up. I've also heard that of the thousands of albums released in a given year only maybe a hundred are actually profitable. The key is that they are so profitable that they end up covering the losses for all the others. I don't know. Don't care. If CDs were $10/ea I would buy more, but at $13-14 I'm not going to whine about them being too expensive because I don't believe that is true. DVDs on the other hand are too expensive, they should cost much less than CDs just because you get so much less entertainment value from them. |
| #23 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/2/2002 6:38:42 PM |
|
There are no clear-cut rules for deciding what's fair use and there are no "automatic" classes of fair uses. Fair use is decided by a judge, on a case by case basis, after balancing the four factors listed in section 107 of the Copyright statute. The factors to be considered include:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes -- Courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes. 2. The nature of the copyrighted work -- A particular use is more likely to be fair where the copied work is factual rather than creative. 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole -- A court will balance this factor toward a finding of fair use where the amount taken is small or insignificant in proportion to the overall work. 4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for value of the copyrighted work -- If the court finds the newly created work is not a substitute product for the copyrighted work, it will be more likely to weigh this factor in favor of fair use. 1 if it's not for profit, it isn't entirely defended, but it does help the claim that you weren't depriving someone of their copyrights 3 defends mixes "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" 4 non-packaged gifts do not affect the potential market of the copyrighted work--a burned disk with sharpy on it that is made once, is not a threat to the market. I admit that the quality (of the recording) issue is a substantial one and was a major factor in the fair use issue. So point 4 gets blurry. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 at 18:41. |
| #24 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/2/2002 7:00:03 PM |
|
bluvg, I really don't see how this digression into quality factors in; I made a one-off comment that it's a shame if what you enjoy ends up being one or two tracks from a 15 track CD, and that substantially affects how you either uphold or ignore copyright.
As for this, "Are you guys trying to ignore the fact that so many people are copying/trading music for free, and illegally? You aren't trying to convince us that this really isn't happening, are you? I don't care necessarily that you don't do it--good for you! But please, don't kid yourself that there aren't people out there that are doing it, and that there should be some way of enforcing the law. What effective alternative method of enforcing the law do you suggest?" I am suggesting that this is America; that I have freedoms. That I am not restricted in my freedoms until I have violated the law. Just because an industry feels threatened, doesn't mean they can take the law into their own hands at the sake of those freedoms. Your argument really degrades quickly when you say something like,"Just because you use your gun for target practice, doesn't mean people aren't using them to murder people." OR "Just because you have your own P2P network where you are only sharing with your family, doesn't mean others aren't doing other stuff--they should all be shut down.' etc, etc, etc... Gilligan, yes, the same is true of CDs which is why it was interesting when Phillips threatened to deny the CD logo of certain DRM protected CDs recently. |
| #25 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/2/2002 7:07:32 PM |
|
Sodajerk--thanks for #31. However, as you've said, the judge would have the final say. In your example, perhaps your distributions didn't hurt the sales of the CDs, but this is often not the case. Many people that I know just copy CDs from someone else, and in doing so are saving themselves from having to purchase the actual CDs. For #4, in the case of my band, the guy that obtained a CD copy from a friend of his directly affected the market of our copyrighted work. He obtained a complete copy (#3). That his friend didn't profit is somewhat inconsequential in our case... we don't really care about that, it's just that he essentially stole $15 from us.
I'm a bit confused as to why music is treated so differently than other consumables on the free market, though.... If you can't afford or don't want to pay for meat, you don't get to eat meat. The argument that "People casually copying in a small community aren't affecting the income of the artists, so they should be allowed to do it" seems a little off to me, whether or not the courts defend it. I'm not a hard-liner on this... I think you should be able to lend (and take back... hear that, all my friends that still have CDs of mine???? :) ) your CDs to a friend or family... but as for making copies... I think if they don't own it, they should either buy it, or just live with not owning it. It's not their right to have it, just because their friend has it. I think lending CDs can still allow for encouraging others to buy their own copies of the CD. Making copies for someone, on the whole, does not encourage them to buy their own copy. Sodajerk, it's cool if your friends and family are that way... but most folks I know don't go out and buy CDs of which they already have a copy from a friend. As for #32, who agreed to royalties on every blank tape sold? Does that mean that I'm entitled to some royalties? Woo hoo!! Where do I get my check? :) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 182 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:27:37 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
