Copy-protected CD makers lose battle

I think you just answered your own question.

There ARE publishers who choose to make available (for free) or allow the free distribution of programming that is not readily available for purchase. In this case, I feel it is ok.

I'll give you an example:

There is a project on the web whose goal it is to digitally archive episodes of the show "Mystery Science Theater 3000". This is a non-profit effort, and does happen to have the blessing of the creators of the show. Here's a excert of part of the groups charter:

"We were clear from the beginning that, following the traditions of the tape trading community, we would be strict about not touching any material that was available commercially via either Rhino Home Video or directly from Best Brains Inc. out of respect for the Brains and their ability to make a profit off of their own work."

It was encouraged that users continue to purchase the (very few) available titles, in hopes that Rhino would resume the official releases. This project was created to fill a specific niche that wasn't effectively being addressed by the publishers. However, realizing that it probably wouldn't release all 200+ episodes, they chose to allow the project to continue without complaint.

In the end, though, the publisher has the right to determine how its goods are distributed. If they choose NOT to allow it, then taking it just because you want it anyway is stealing.

x34

 

I found a good article on the historical growth of intelectual property rights from a site at Harvard Law School.

You can read it here

While for the most part, I agree with you, I think that the issue is not as completely and totaly equal to pure theft as you seem to believe.

For instance, there was reciently a big deal about some genetic company which took some common types of basmati rice in India, modified them slightly to produce more protein, and sold it for a big markup. What 'intelectual property rights' do those peoples who spent hundreds of generations developing these things have, or are intelectual property rights only the realm of those with the proper lawyers?

Or how about people like Paul McCartney, who can't even control the songs he wrote, because someone took advantage of him at some point? You know who controls McCartney's work? Michael Jackson. Explain to me how this makes sense?

People like DaDakoda and Jeff are the people for whom copyright laws were created for in the first place. I sympathise with the need to protect them. The problem is, that copyrights are now exclusively the domain of Corporations and the legaly savy.

I have a genuine problem with something like the Adobe thing, where the Russian Engineer reverse engineered their software (perfectly legal in Russia, btw) to make an interface for the program to read to the freaking blind, and Adobe had him arrested.

I have no problem copying/swapping movies with friends, as long as they're not avalable for me to buy in any form. I'll gladly steal out of print software, even if the company who distributes it doesn't it wan't to be stolen, despite the fact that it's not avalable from them.

I have no problem 'stealing' windows from Microsoft, by transfering the license from my old computer to my new computer.

There should be limits to intelectual property rights, specifically, the term of their existance, and the way in which they can be treated like actual, tangable physical property.

 

Da: I get your point. Honestly, I have no idea why game developers do it so I'll just plead ignorant on that one. I see it as being a fairly significant issue for music because

1. There is a greater interest, overall, in music than there is in software. No shock there.

2. The technical skills needed to copy music are less than those required to copy software. I guess it is getting easier but my dad already knows how to deal with MP3's even though he still calls me when his computer freezes up but he wouldn't have a clue about software pirating.

But, I see your point. I'm sure you guys have been battling it for a long time and, as you said, it is the reason for copy protection.

 

Like I said, the biz is in trouble...

Note the highligted...

<i>Music biz in a funk as Grammys near

Industry adrift in 'perfect storm' of woes
By GEOFF BOUCHER
Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES -- The Grammy Awards are a valentine the music industry gives itself every February, a confection of celebrity, commerce and art. But the 44th annual edition of the gala arrives at Staples Center on Wednesday amid an industry chill that goes well beyond champagne buckets at the after-parties.

"It's grim, the most grim it's been since I've been around the business," is the flat appraisal of David Geffen, perhaps the most famous music mogul of the past three decades. "It's a very, very challenging time."

The challenges come from all sides, but each cuts to the bottom line. <b>Music sales are sagging, hundreds of layoffs have demoralized record company staffers and superstar artists have united for a public revolt against the industry's business practices. </b>

And, more troubling in the long run, consumers are embracing new technologies that threaten to scatter the industry's musical commodities like coins spilled on a busy street. <b>Last year, blank CDs outsold all music albums in the United States for the first time, and, as the Napster saga showed, tens of millions of fans are willing to grab their music online without paying. </b>

Jim Guerinot, a top rock manager, called the combined issues "a perfect storm" that could threaten the creakiest of the industry's corporate ships.

In the short term, the industry is obsessed by a lack of star power. "There's nervousness right now because we haven't seen a new crop of stars like we've been having over the last couple of years," said Tom Calderone, MTV senior vice president for music. "Whether it was Fred Durst (of Limp Bizkit) or Kid Rock or Britney Spears or 'N Sync, we had wall-to-wall stars for a while. There are a lot of great songs out right now, but we went from superstars to a group of potential superstars."

Why did music sales drop last year for the first time since the mass introduction of the CD? A range of industry leaders pointed to the cooling of the youth pop sensation, the absence of new releases by mega-sellers such as Celine Dion and Garth Brooks and the spread of the Internet downloading culture.

Even the most optimistic among those interviewed, Clive Davis, the longtime mogul riding high after shaping the recent successes of Carlos Santana and Alicia Keys, agreed that the technological issues are worrisome. But Davis, who now heads J Records, says the other problems are not so different from those that have always existed in the industry's peculiar and bruising playground.

"It's not a grim time for music. There's not a question if music is as vital in people's lives as much as it has ever been. These other things are challenges," he said.

Davis will have a reminder of another of those challenges Tuesday night, when he hosts his famous Grammy week party at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event's usual monopoly of star wattage will be challenged by four benefit concerts the same night. Those shows feature the Eagles, Sheryl Crow and No Doubt, and their goal is to raise money for a political fight against what is seen as the industry's unfair contracts.

<b>The Recording Artists Coalition hopes to secure stronger copyright protection and free-agency status for performers that could radically change the economics of the music business. </b>

The timing of the campaign has darkened moods at the tops of record companies and dragged down morale at the staff level. "Prozac, the whole industry should be on Prozac right now," said Arnold Stiefel, longtime manager for Rod Stewart.

The overall financial woes have a famous face as a symbol: Mariah Carey, who was jettisoned last month from the roster of the EMI Group after recording just one album on the label. No major music company had ever abandoned a superstar pact so quickly, but Carey's album was a major flop, and corporate pressures within EMI have mounted.</i>

 

This quote killed me:

<i>In the short term, the industry is obsessed by a lack of star power. "There's nervousness right now because we haven't seen a new crop of stars like we've been having over the last couple of years," said Tom Calderone, MTV senior vice president for music. "Whether it was Fred Durst (of Limp Bizkit) or Kid Rock or Britney Spears or 'N Sync, we had wall-to-wall stars for a while. There are a lot of great songs out right now, but we went from superstars to a group of potential superstars."</i>

The industry is ****ing itself. The reason there aren't wall-to-wall stars, as they put it, is because the industry drops artists as soon as they are old enough to shave. The sign crap just because it is young and then send them packing as soon as they hit 25.

I've said this 100 times and it bugs the crap out of me. Instead of investing in the artists and giving them time to develop and hone their craft, they demand sales now and forever and when they don't produce, they are kicked to the curb. I mean, dropping Mariah Carey when she has rough sales??? Good lord! If she can get dropped, anyone can!

 

Jeff, I don't get it. You seem to blame widespread music download for the downturn in the music industry, then you turn around and admit that there isnt a whole lot out there worth buying right now....