by Michael Robertson

Most of you probably know that my former company was MP3.com, which was instrumental in bringing digital music to the masses. One of the things we stood for at MP3.com was the consumer's rights over their own music collection. Our belief was that consumers who purchase their music should have the ability to convert that music into a format they like and put the music on any device they desire. We even tried to get a law pushed through congress affirming this (we did not succeed in that attempt). The last five years have seen multiple attempts to limit consumers' rights via DRM (digital rights management) technology. These are schemes which add "big brother" restrictions to what you can do with your own music library.

It's no secret that the major record labels want to embed restrictions into music and force those restrictions onto customers, but recently they've been getting help from some surprising sources -- namely Microsoft and Apple. While I was the CEO of MP3.com, Microsoft repeatedly offered millions of dollars to us to convert the library of tunes at MP3.com from consumer friendly MP3 to Windows Media format. We always politely declined. Microsoft's strategy was that if they could get the whole world to convert to Windows Media, then they could get the record labels to pay them huge sums to limit how consumers could listen to their music. Thank goodness that hasn't happened yet, because having your music "expire", disappear, degrade in quality, not be able to burn to CD or load onto your devices is an awful consumer experience.

Microsoft is at it again though, trying to use their money and dominance in the OS to get a foothold in music by selling out consumers. Recently, news.com reported that Microsoft is cozzying up to the leading CD  restriction company. This means we're one baby step away from all music CDs ONLY playing on Microsoft Windows XP. Imagine having to buy a copy of Microsoft Windows XP for every music device just so you can listen to your own music, and even then being restricted from making a compilation CD for your car!

Apple has understandably succumbed to pressure from the music labels to bolster their chances of securing music licenses for their iTunes music service by trampling music buyers rights. The 2.4% of the world which use Macs will find out that all the music in their newly announced service is wrapped in a digital padlock. This gives Apple (or the record labels) the ability to control what a buyer can do with the music they purchase. The user doesn't get to pick which computer they can listen to their music on (Macs only). Forget any device that isn't an iPod, like my current MP3 player (tiny, no cables, rechargeable battery - nice). Don't even think about burning a disc full of 100 MP3s to play in your DVD player. (Have you noticed virtually all new DVD players will play MP3 files?)

Straight ahead of us is a world where CDs will only play in Microsoft Windows XP computers. Digital songs you buy online will only work with Apple software or an Apple sanctioned portable player. You will not be able to burn any of the music you've purchased onto an MP3 CD to pop into your DVD player. That's a sad and expensive world for music fans because labels and large corporations will extort money from their users who just want to enjoy their own music.

When you pay for music, you should be able to enjoy that music in all the different and convenient ways available. I'm still a big believer in the value of MP3 because it ensures that the customer is in control of their music. Our commitment at Lindows.com is that we won't build restrictions into our OS that limit how you can use your music. We'll do our best to stand up for consumers' rights with their music. Music fans should do their part and not buy crippled music whether in the form of a "secure CD" or an online music service. Instead they should direct their dollars to non-copy protected CDs, services like www.emusic.com (which uses MP3 format) and operating systems that put consumers first, like most Linux offerings still do.

-- Michael

Reproduced with Michael Robertson's permission

This is why I will never buy another version of Windows. I still running Windows 98, and my next OS will be a version of Linux. I will no longer support any company that looks to force, extort, or even sue consumers into buying their product.

I was thinking. Couldn't we, the consumers, many of us who have programming experience, just invent a whole new format for music? And since we would be the inventors, we'd have the patent and then the RIAA couldn't do anything to stop us. Of course we'd have to find a way to make it compatible with current portables, but within a few years, there'd be players to play it. I know that there's Ogg Vorbis out right now and it has potential, but it's open source so all the RIAA has to do is get their nasty hands on it and they'll learn how to triple encrypt it so you have to buy three licenses to make it work.

No, I'm talking about something new altogether. Maybe call them NBFs for No Bull Format or something. We could figure out a way to make the format smaller, with less loss than the current MP3 and with no room to write in any copy protection.

If it's one thing I've learned in all my years working with customers, it's this: You don't fuck with the customer. If they're unhappy with the product, then they'll go find a better product. Or demand it, even. It's time we do that. It's time we, the masses, take charge.

Yeah I understand your point. It's just that creating a new media format to become a standard isn't something that just happens overnight. Especially now, with mp3's established as the standard for downloaded music. Most file-sharers are just average computer users. They dont understand the difference between authorized and unauthorized mp3's, let alone the difference in formats. Hell most of them don't even know what the RIAA is, and that there is a legal war taking place that will determine how you listen to your music 10 years from now. All they want to know is how they can download Madonna MP3's onto their computer (which IS LEGAL if they have already bought the album), and "What the fuck" is she cursing at them for?.

Creating a new audio format requires a great deal of knowledge about digitalization, and audio in general. Then you need to find a way to take that raw audio data and find different methods to compress it so that one song doesn't take up 100mb. It takes a talented crew, a lot of experience, and even more trial and error to accomplish this. Being an entry-level computer programmer myself, I can't even imagine how they develop such a format.

On a side note, is it even possible to copy protect an mp3? If so, I never even knew. The only copy protected format that I have ever tried was Liquid Audio. With all of the money and research poured into this format, I downloaded a Liquid Audio track, recorded it directly to a wav file as I played it, and compressed it into an mp3 file. How hard was that? Not hard at all. This just proves the point that COPY PROTECTIONS DO NOT WORK. IF YOU CAN LISTEN TO IT, YOU CAN COPY IT.

Also, I do not believe that the RIAA would even touch the OGG format. Being that its open source, you cannot patent, or copyright any changes that you make to the format. And any changes that you do make, you must officially publish the source code. Meaning that they would have to publish the encryption algorithm.

Actually, it would be possible to use vorbis compression for a DRMed format. Quite easily in fact. It would be trivial for a good programer to write a program to extract the vorbis stream from an OGG file and put it in a different container. But you wont see vorbis in DRMed formats for a different reason. There are, as far as I know, only three companies selling audio DRM and all are commited to their own codecs. Microsoft is determined to switch the world to its WMA codec, through whatever foul means nessicary. Sony owns the ATRAC and ATRAC3 codecs and realmedia has its realaudio. I dont know much about liquid audio, but I intend to fix that tomorrow.

There is another war going alongside the legal one. MP3 is old. The next big battle will be what replaces it. WMA is currently ahead because MS bundle WMP with windows. WMP will not only play WMA files without any need to download additional codecs, it will even rip CDs to WMA for you. The main flaw in WMA as far as Joe User is concerned is a shortage of tools. MS makes the basic encoder, but the spec is only available to devlopers under a license which is so restrictive they cant write any decent tools. The license even says programs must not save in any format except WMA, because microsoft doesn't like people converting to other formats . OGG is from a technical position the best format and certinly more open and cheaper for devlopers, but lacks the power of bundleing and marketing department that gives WMA its advantage. ATRAC3 is favoured by sony and lagging a long way behind in the format war. The main point is MS is trying to gain a monopoly on music formats, makeing Windows a requirement for multimedia as well as for gameing and getting rid of those macs and linux users that have been troubleing Bills dreams of a world united under the windows flag.

Please research claims of what products will and won't do. iTunes is able to burn music to a CD as audio, data, or MP3s that will play in your DVD player. There is going to have to be an acceptable level of DRM restrictions found to allow music downloads to be purchased. I believe Apple may have come close. I personally am not willing to give up the quality of uncompressed audio. MP3s do not sound good. OGG, WMA, and AAC are getting closer but I still want the uncompressed files if I am paying for the music. I will continue to vote with my money on unencrypted CDs until I can download the format I want. I do agree that Microsoft is working too hard to take a percentage of every dollar spent on entertainment

At the risk of drawing fire over a discussion of platforms, I want to say just a few things, but there is a tad bit of history which I must offer.

1) I've owned Macs since 1986. They're very expensive compared to Windows machines, but my $1300 Mac that I bought 5 years ago has never stopped working, never had a problem and, with Pro Tools, I can mix 24 tracks at once on my feeble old Mac.

2) I stopped using Microsoft software after I attempted to use a Mac version FoxPro to progam a database. I've written self-standing Mac software adn can safely say after my experience with FoxPro that Microsoft does not.

Called Microsoft and asked themhow to add a scroll bar to the side of the window. Theire explanation was that it was really just a graphic and you have to make it look like it's scrolling but it really doesn't.

So that went in the trash.

And in 17 years without any virus protection, I've never seen one on my machine. I actually even check once a year.

So I've always been a big Mac advocate, right or wrong. I hate Bill Gates even more than Hilary Rosen.

This, however, is bad, bad news from Steve Jobs. I don't trust it and now I don't trust him.

I notice that Michael suggests eMusic. Been there? If you go to the spot to sign up to add music, it clearly states that they do not do business with unsigned acts.

I'm asking Apple how to get music INTO their system and I'm expected the same answer there, if any. Apple is worse than the RIAA when it comes to response to customers.

I've never use a piece of Microsoft software other than the old Excel 4 copy that I have. If I have to use a Microsoft product to listen to a CD, I'll never buy either. Ever.

Since the new version of Pro Tools came out, I was ready to reinvest and get a new Mac to move into OS X.

Microsoft lost me as a customer almost 10 years ago. Apple may have lost me today. After almost 2 decades.

Because both of them have joined the conspiracy to keep all of us Indies out of the market.

Exactly Striker.

I will not buy another version of Windows and, like you, the next OS that will be on my computer will be Linux. Actually, as most of you know, Microsoft has been monopolizing many markets to their system. It is only recently that these changes affect us. I was content to let Microsoft control things that did not matter to me but now they have gone too far. Down with Microsoft, hail free source.

and always,

Hail Mp3!!!

ok, Mr. Zeimann.

I'm surprised to find myself in such aggreement with an avid mac user. But it seems all the big boys are ganging up. Here's what I say: we need to offically declare war. You made a big step with the class action suit, but I we need to recognise the biggest advantage they have over us (and it's not money, we have more of that too when you think about it, hell where they *get* there money in the first place? US) that being, organization. We need to treat this as a war effort and get organized. Now, for those of you in the big brother department (just in case your watching) let me take this opportunity to state that I am against any and all illegal action against the recording industry, it's affiliates, or anyone. That out of the way, let me suggest a plan of action:

1) find a site (or use this one) to act as a base of operation.

2) develope a list of needs including monetary support and what type of personel are needed

3) get a group of "generals" and start planning. work on getting the message out, organizing and expanding the boycott, furthering legal action, and so on

4) elect a leader. Now this is tricky business. The US government is proof of that. To a large extent, it has become the very thing it has set out not to become (now that I am unpatriotic, I am just pointing out a fact about the natural tendency of a group to become centralized)

I will be involved at any level I can be of service at. Please take my plan to heart, because I believe in my strategic abilities.

Thankyou

pardon me...a typo (a few actually but an important one) NOT that I am unpartriotic

", but recently they've been getting help from some surprising sources -- namely Microsoft and Apple."

Uhh....can anyone here really say that they were surpised? I can't.

Mike,
I like your idea and it would be good if somehow it could be taken in a state by state fashion. In other words a group of people from each state in the U.S. that visit this site and others take it upon themselves to hit the Senators and Represenative for their state repeatedly with letters and e-mails about the issues. Furthermore if anyone lives relatively close to another or several others in your state then you could organize meetings and plan on how to inform the community around you. After you have gained some support in your community and you have a fairly sizeable group, say 10 to 20 members, give yourselves a name. Then you can take it even further and advertise. Put ads in the newspaper, hand out pamphlets, or if you have the funds, put ads on local tv stations. If the stations try to strike you down threaten them with limiting free speech. As long as the commercial is not offensive and you're paying for it you have a right to see it run. Even if you only have it run once some will see it and learn from it. If anyone is in Fort Lauderdale, Florida e-mail me with the subject "RIAA Boycott" at p51mustangd@hotmail.com I can devote weekends to the fight.

well here's the thing. There is power in centralization. Now I have no problem with there being a state by state groups, but unless we ALL band together we won't have the power we other could have. But you see, at the same time, centralization is what we're fighting. In this way, we are not at all unlike the American colonies fighting the British. One difference is, if we unite, we have (by an incredible margin) the money and man-power advantage. That's why we need a leader. Someone who wants there to be decentralization. Someone who has an overriding vision that will see things through. But ultimately, someone who does NOT WANT to be the leader, and here's why. (this is based on my personal philosophy) Since centralization is the speedy path to corruption than the person who heads the centralization should be fully aware (and abhorrent of) the inherrent dangers. This is partially based in my philosophy of war in general. I hate war, but I am not a pacifist. I believe that war is a terrible, horrible thing, but I believe some things are worse, thus I believe the only people who should be allowed to be generals are people who hate war. It all comes down to priorities....but alas I have strayed off topic.

To get to the point, state-by-state groups is fine, but there simply *must* be a centralized effort. Think of the money we could raise for commercials, news articles, and the like? (although TV commercials aren't particularly efficient, although that may not be true once we do a market/demographic analysis...but that comes later)

Or to summarize: Centralization is power. Power corrupts. So we need someone who can cheat the devil and escape the fires of hell if only by a thin margin.

One thing to consider... no matter what happens tomorrow, today mp3's are free, will play on many devices, and there are multitudes of unencrypted discs out there. If all cd's became encrypted tomorrow, there's still an awful lot of music that can still be ripped. The mp3 codec isn't going to disappear just because a new standard comes out. There will always be software to make mp3s. And players that will play them. Go ahead and encrypt CD's. I still got my mp3s. Go ahead and start releasing CD's that no one can copy, watch your sales drop. I'll keep releasing my music in high quality mp3s so people can keep burning their own CDs.

There is coming a day when artists will have to choose if they want their music to be free to the public, or so protected that no one will buy it. Which one do you think will win.

As for mp3.com, what a wasteland it's become. As a previous fan with no knowledge when Vivendi took over, I watched what was once a tremendous resource for my band, change into a big billboard for the same crap you see on MTV. How ironic that Vivendi went bankrupt. They took away something that was free, tried to make money off of it, and went bankrupt in the process...I love it.

There are few things in life that I would consider devoting serious time to, but taking music back from business and putting it into the hands of people is one of them.

encryption? HA! I laugh in the face of encryption. Just like you've said in other posts about "if you can listen to it, you can record it" the same is true for encryption. If it's possible to decrypt it at all, other people will figure out to do it. Now secure web sites and online wiring of money is a whole other matter. But when you have the CD you have constant access to it, and when you buy a player (if your skilled enough and have the right education, and there are plenty of people in our cause who do) then you have access to the decryption sequence. All that to say: The technology war is where we own all! If they had a snow balls chance in hell of beating us on that front they'd still be doing it. The fact that the mentally braindead RIAA is actually abandoning that front just show's how badly there losing in that arena. Anyone remember the SDMI (secure digital media initiave) ? I don't blame you if you don't. It was a pathetic attempt on the part of the RIAA to place "watermarking" in to mp3s so that they wouldn't copy. When they beta tested it (ie invited programmers to *try* to hack there encryption) it was cracked in a few months, and when the colledge professor who did it attempted to publish his efforts the RIAA threatened him with a lawsuit. In a rather intelligent move, the professor rather than publishing it anyway published the RIAA threat and released the paper on p2p.

We own the internet. We own the technology. They are playing on our turf.

This is all good. This is where we must go. I noticed earlier this week that there has already been a division of labor taking place.

There are several teams already in place.
Media
Economics
Legal
Technology
Artist Representation (coalition)

The last, of course, is the most recent addition, but it is now inevitable. Just like the other 4 tasks, we just have to iron out some details.

We have people in the Internet (or underground) media working to get the word through to the mainstream media. And we may get a littel extra push from some unlikely sources.

The economics people are questioning my assertions and checking my numbers. Hell, maybe there is a legitimate reason why EMI's cost of goods sold is 71% of income.

The legal team is coming along nicely, it appears. We're just waiting for a few things to firm up. Details, details.
But so everyone knows, Johnny Cochran and Robert Shapiro were never an option. They are criminal lawyers. Gerry Spence actually did write me back, but he doesn't do these kind of cases, either.

If we could get David Boise, though, THAT would be a coup...

Technology -- We started out real well there. I have to go back and look at the original posts and refine the posting down into where we are so far. I know I have questions. And there's still a NASA computer scientist with a little spare time to help us theorize and trouble-shoot. He's already got some advice.

As for our coalition, I'll help organize, plan and whatever as long as I can, but I've got real work coming up here.

Right now, my big question is this. Do we keep monopolizing boycott-riaa's news story areas to not only keep people aware but keep it as high-profile as possible (after all, this is kind of like a boycott on steroids), or should we break up into discussion groups in a forum somewhere and periodically post developments here?

I'd like to hear thumbtack and leflaw weigh in on that one.

well one thing that's definately important is numbers. Statistics. Quantifiable progress that we can use to rally the troops. Funny thing is, if we get enough media coverage we'll force the RIAA into a catch 22 cause if they play with their numbers to "prove" we aren't hurting them then they have affectively "proven" that p2p isn't hurting them, but if they continuing whining about p2p then we can present our numbers and show that it was really us. Also, someone needs to figure out how much this effort is going to cost so that we can start an official fund-raiser. A progress bar on the main site showing how close we are to our financial goal would be a great stimulus. Also a weekly "war report" and again, alot of this is already being done, but if we unite we are invincible.

The Technology types have some work to do. MS mas managed to get most music purchase sites using WM. Althrough WM DRMv2 has been broken very well, DRMv1 hasn't. Break that encryption, release a utility for it, and MS will have a much harder time In the longer term, it is essential someone breaks either CPRM or DTCP, or both. Otherwise open technology will be locked out of most CE media systems.

(CPRM is the system used to protect recordable DVDs and SD cards. DTCP is a technology which will edventually be used to encrypt digital connections between CE equipment)

Most importantly, we need publicity. A lot of publicity. How many hits is this site getting? I would be happier if it was 10 times as much (10 times as many donations to pay for a new server too . I dont mean just getting everyone on the internet to support us. We already have a large poprtion of the geek demographic . We need to get publicity in the real world, where millions of people are still buying CDs because it makes them look cool. Not easy. The entire entertainment/media industry agrees on a few issues, such as that piracy is bad and DRM is good. They will stick together on this one. Mainstream media is very hard to get into.

Is it just me, or is the RIAA website down again?

The SDMI watermarking is the same system use by the CPSA. Its the most advanced audio watermarking system available. It can survive lossy compression and D/A/D conversion. Its inaudable to all but the most sensitive people. Dispite this its still easily removed by a deliberate attack.

Dont criticise apple too quickly. Remember that asside from that site they have been very resistant to any form of DRM, even annoying the music industry with their "Rip, mix, burn" advertiseing campaign. The DRM here is required, because there is no way the labels would let anyone sell their music in a DRMed format. The restrictions are no worse than pressplay. Perhaps better. Pressplay will destroy your music collection if you leave, I dont know if apple does that.

Newsflash: if it can be heard over a speaker, I can copy it. "Restrict" all you like. I haven't heard anything new by the major labels that I've liked since the early '90s and there wasn't much I liked then. (The trend has been toward that "Hootie and the Blowfish" monotone drone. That hasn't changed since they hit the scene nearly ten years ago. I want to hear a vocal range greater than three notes.)

Say it again, blue!

Hail Mp3!!!

I'm gonna play devil's advocate and say this wouldn't be a bad idea for MAC users, don't know about PC users. I saw a news clip of it on my local news station this morning. As the commentator said, you paid 99c for a single 45 record. I did that when I was a kid. But, just what restrictions are the users gonna have to put up with? Is it unlimited? Can it be moved off your hard drive and burned to a CD? I would want orginal singles from the: 50's, 60's, 70's & 80's. I do not download today's top 40. I'm leary as to the selections and sound quality. It would be cool to burn as much as you can fit on a CD. Then, I would say it was worth it but here's another little tidbit, how many kids will have a credit card handy? Not many. I just don't see this working. Also, how much does the artist get if anything? RIAA owned and run? with MS? No thanks.

Thats known as the micropayment problem. Its just not practical to use a credit card to buy something for 99c, espicially when a significent portion of the buyers are kids. Some kids might get their parents to lend them the money, but most wont and of course a few parents will have a fit when they read the lycics they have unknowingly let their kids listen to

Couple techie notes - Ogg is open via a BSD license, anyone can do anything they want, and re-release any way they want. Only catch is that if you get away from their baseline you'll have to convince everyone to use your tools/players/files. I read some group had actually created and was patent pending on a DRM version, Nifty, but how are they going to convince people to use it? I sure won't, and there's nothing tecnical they can do to get rid of the oggs I like. An aside - Mac OSX is based on software originally under a BSD license. Someone else can still go get the original, I think it was FreeBSD, and make their own operating system if they want, but they can't use OS X.

Also, encryption is just a tool, I can see some good uses. Particularly, signatures could be added to music files so that a person knows they've got exactly what a specific artist released. Adding restrictions is harder than doing something simple like telling people "Hey, this is really me." This could be nice for folks getting a copy of a copy of a copy who want to double check that nobody slipped a virus into the file or transcoded and lost quality or something.

I think it'd be a real boon for freedom if Microsoft and Apple really did aim to create a market out of strictly enforced DRM. Responses would vary between "BMI breaks my computer" and "MS broke my CD burner." Whether they creep up to it or drop into it suddenly, the competition in software and music is already here, waiting to offer a Free, perhaps slightly rugged frontier in place of a candy-coated corporate police-state.

I am and will continue to be a mac user. The new iTunes/music service is a good step in the right direction. You can convert, record and save files to hard drives or CD's in various formats. The AAC format sounds great and will get better. Ok, you may have to juggle playlists or burn an initial CD and make copies but it is afairly simple process. What bothers me about most of your complaints is you supreme contempt for the RIAA and the Artists that work for them. These people have been ripping us off for years and we have smiled and given them money. Recently, via napster etc we have struck them where it hurts but in the end it will only hurt us as well. We have hurt them in their wallets and they are just now beginning to realize that we will not go away. So, they create copy protection and download limitations etc to try and do what is only natural-- protect their livelihood and business. Finally, they have become aware of the need to change the way music is distributed. Apple's foray into this are is a good beginning. It will continue to change and in the end we will continue to benefit. As a new distribution model emerges, we will get hi quality audio with extras and special editions as well as eventual cheaper CD or audio DVD -whatever prices. A technology or model will emerge that will allowmaking a CD or whatever like we used to make cassettes. It has to. Musicians deserve to make money and the recording industry does to if they continue to support artists. Perhaps all artists will become digitally independent-- great there too. MS is a monopoly and will continue to use those strategies. Apple is trying too make money and a place for themselves and they have made a start in the name of the consumer and the distributor. Cheers to Apple for trying. Free music that we own is great. Pirated music is illegal. Keep stealing AND YOU WILL ONLY GET MORE PROBLEMS.

Stealing? Pirating?

Pirate = Stealing and duplicating for intent of profit off someone elses work.

Stealing = Acquiring something of value without owners permission without paying for it.

MP3 = Computer data file made up of many binary digits. No value, no material, just magnetic particles on a hard drive, or optical pits on a cdrom.

ssalerno needs to learn facts.

1) I'd want to see the artist GET PAID and not the label. who gets the 99c each dl????

2) I would love to be able to download orginals like we did on Napster and not remixes or digital copies. I used to be able to get lets say an orginal song from the 50's.

3) I wouldn't mind this at all if it was unrestricted and the artist or publisher got my money and not MS/RIAA.

4) P2P is great but the quality of the downloads sucks big time, 90 percent of the time it has skips and pops. Will this happen with this type of system and does the user have to pay for broken downloads?

5) what about modem users???? and kids under the 18 without a credit card?? Hell most adults don't have a credit card for online buying.

lots of things to concider.

sslarno, you've missed the point of this site. Go, read. Then come back.

Hope not to start a fight here, but I'd suggest not using the war analogy. You need a determined group of people to resist RIAA's attempts at stifling indie artists, but you don't need a new heirarchy of control nor the sacrifices on your side war implies. You'll likely get a lot of people convinced that this is just a fanatic grudge-fest from folk who couldn't let Napster go.

What you need is a constant, expanding demonstration of effective alternatives to the outdated, corrupt music business model - A consistant place where artists and fans can see HOW they can ALL get what they want.

I'd recommend starting with a short study of what some successful independant artists, particularly those who support trading, have done to pay the rent. Get their sites listed and do a rundown, something like:

"George Ziemann/Hayden's Wall sells CD's and distributes mp3s while writing powerful counter-arguments to RIAA's anti-`piracy` efforts."
* Explain how effective this has been
* some tips/thoughts from the band
* challenges, thoughts on not getting airplay, etc.
* do another in a week or less, so people keep coming back
* also look at some non-artist solutions, like musiclink. Get the numbers and be ojective! If something isn't working people need to know.

Heck, I'm close to graduating with a BA, maybe I could do some of this once the spare time kicks in.

... similar to the NPR post, I just noticed, but ongoing.

ssalerno,

why should the RIAA of all people get the money? Age any money for music they did not create in the firt place? Why should they own an artist copyright? Do you realize just how rich and powerful they really are? They are unstopable. They are a monoply that needs to be dismantled.

The artists are the ones who suffer and the fans. The RIAA will not see a dime of my money ever again.

screwed up the above post. That should of been: why should they get money for music they didn't create?

An MP3 isn't even that. Data is a concept noone in the RIAA understands, and surprisingly few outside. Most users think a file is a little picture. Anyone can learn to use a computer, learning to use data requires natural skill. Only someone who understands every stage from the analog in the mic cable to the clusters on the hard drive can understand the concept of data fully.

SinisterX: Because they bought the copyright? As far as the lawyers are concerned thats a good reason. To be honist, I dont care about the artists. If musics not profitable it will simply be produced by people who are not motivated by profit, working like the rest of us and makeing music in their spare time because they want to make it, not because they want to sell it. The important thing is to make sure the RIAA doesn't get any money, because their reckless actions against the precieved threat of piracy threatens to perminantly change society. Those people are not sociologists, they do not consider any consequences of their actions except for the effect on the bottom line.

Hmm I just visited garageband.com and listened to their radio station there. (which, btw, was the first time i've felt *good* about listening to music in a long time) I had a thought, tell me what you guys think. Many colledge campuses have high bandith connections available to the students, and many also have their own campus wide radio station. It would not be overly difficult to broadcast the songs on the internet radio stations on the campus stations. (campus, garageband, and other legal considerations needing to be handled first of course) This would be a great promotion for Indie artists and we could slip in commercials (still less that normal radio stations) that tell the truth about RIAA and the war that's been going on.

Seems like it would benefit everyone. Any thoughts?

Guess we'd better start buyin up all the uncorrupted cassettes and CD blanks we can get our hands on. Maybe Bully Gates and Hitlery RosenSTEIN will ram their Limo's head on into each other speeding to their respective Communist/Fascist board meetings. We can only wish!

MikeSpence, thats a great idea.The only problem is the RIAA's megalomaniacal quest for control of everything musical. I'm sure they will use their congressional Dobermans to twist the arms of the colleges to declare anything,"free" illegal. Now that they know they can bully college kids, it wont stop until they really piss someone off with a lot of power. Say, they bust in on some poor sap trying to tune in to the Indie radio, and escort him from the dorm wearing 9mm Beretta earrings and a bath towel later finding out it was the son/daughter of a Governor, or the head of a BIG committee, or a powerful mafia figure....sayyyy...I hope they do!

About the war analogy.

I've used it myself and, as pertinent as it sounds, it is not really a good idea. Even if they agree with us, considering the current world situation, the simple use of the word will cause some people to throw up a shield and tune us right out.

At the same time, there are distinct similarities -- we do need some specialized "forces" and leaders for each particular team. For instance, I consider myself a computer geek myself, but all of this ogg and DTCP, BSD, STMI and all of the other letters have left me feeling sorely untechnical.

So I can step away from the technical side now, although I would like to have some input on the basic logic behind how we construct a new system and the rules which will govern its use, both public and programmed in. But I am no longer useful for the actual solution. I can only present hypotheticals and "waht if?" scenarios, which are equally as valuable when programming.

Not to wander to far from the point, we need to think carefully about how we describe this. Calling it a "war" will bite us in the ass in the long run.

But if we present ourselves as a grassroots effort for recognition and representation, those Senators and Congressmen we need to deluge will look at it just differently enough that it may make our effort much easier.

At heart, I feel that it is indeed a battle against a tyrannical organization that seeks to supress our voice as it continues to abuse the rights of its own "subjects," i.e., the major artists. There are a lot of similarities.

But we'll do ourselves more damage by the use of that word than we will gain from its metaphorical power.

As for Apple -- I'm their biggest fan. In fact, I think it looks like they have a much smaller market share than they really do. Why? Because my current machine has lasted almost six years, while I have watched my friends burn through several PCs each. We don't buy as many because ours last longer, are more reliable and and virtually immune to the viruses designed to take out Windows machines.

As a computer user, I see that it takes five PCs to survive a Mac life-span. Naturally, the PC people will sell at least five times as many machines and therefore, easily consist of 80 percent of the market.

But that doesn't mean they are on the desktops of 80 percent of the computer users. WE could outnumber Windows users by 2 to 1 and Intel, Dell and Gateway will still sell more computers.

As an artist, if we don't count and are not even considered as potential content, then I have a real problem with it, now matter how much I love Apple.

I feel that my Mac gives me better gear than George Martin had when he produced the Beatles. But even if, by some miracle, I manage to create the "next Sgt. Pepper's." no one will ever know if I can't get the product into the marketplace -- even at Apple.

George, I am glad you are the unwavering voice of logic here. I guess I never outgrew my 60's hippy instinct to throw bricks first and talk later. Thanks

By the way, Im going to reduce Bill Gates presence in my pad. Would you recommend the iMac?

goldenpi,

say who? The artists? Im no expect but how can an MP3 file be copyrighted under the RIAA and not the artist themselves?

Back to topic. Although I do believe Apple is going in the right direction and again, I would really concider paying for top quality downloads of out of print popular songs. But the RIAA doesn't push out of print songs from say the 50's, 60's and 70's.

So, they won't be getting my money any time all too soon. I havent bought an over priced album in years and do not ever intend to again.

I still think artists deserve to get paid for their work but the RIAA needs to go.

damn, errors can't type today too much coding. That was supposed to be 'expert' meh.

You could call the effort Music Revival Movement or something. It needs to be positive and speak of change for the better.

Can we start a permanent "Future of Music" or similar forum or thread? It seems like the best discussions are occuring in reponses in these articles that change frequently.

RythmMethod -- Depends on if you are recording with it or just listening.

Apple is discontinuing the iMac. It doesn't have an audio input and I don't think you can add a PCI card to run Pro Tools or whatever.

But if you're part of the audience, it's the cheap way in.

All signed artists are required to transfer copyright on the songs to the label by their contract. Take a look at the copyright notice on any commercial audio CD.

I have checked the apple music restrictions. They are far less restrictive than pressplay.

goldenpi -- "All signed artists are required to transfer copyright on the songs to the label by their contract."

Not any more...

http://www.azoz.com/news/founder.html

RythmMethod + gdZiemann

Audio in is possible on the iMac via USB and/or via Firewire

http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/imic/ is one of the simpler options.

There are others with multiple channels capabilities and "pro" quality inputs like S/P DIF.

Ive got an extigy external sound adaptor for my laptop. Its PC only, no mac support. Those external sound adaptors are fantastic through, kept a long way from the EM-noisey PC. The only flaw with the extigy is its SAP-compliant. When playing a DRMed WMA file the digital outputs are disabled. I dont use WMA files, and espicially not DRMed files, but it can be very annoying for people with digital speakers

Here is the really important piece of Apple's Terms of Use:

"Usage Rules.
Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.
You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use.
You shall be authorized to use the Products on three Apple-authorized computers at any time.
You shall be entitled to export, burn or copy Products solely for personal, noncommercial use.
Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners in any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition, or artwork embodied in any Product.
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
The delivery of Products does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Products."

Here is what I get:
3 computers at any one time (you can keep changing them, as long as you deauthorize one computer first). That makes my home desktop, my laptop and my work computer capable of playing my music.

I just burned an entire album (Erik Satie, if you care) into an Audio CD. It works on my Regular stereo. I understand there is a limit of 10 CDs that I can burn from the same PLAYLIST, but I am too cheap to throw away NINE CD-Rs to test that theory. I am also not sure what would stop me from re-ripping that CD.

I just synched my IPod (actually, it just happened), and any number of IPods from what I gather, to the same music library.

Can anyone explain to me what I just gave up in terms of my fair use rights? (That is not a rhetorical question, by the way)

The way I see it, the only issue is whether AAC as a format is an audio quality-preserving delivery medium to a sufficient extent. But that's the consumer's choice to make, whether they are willing to pay $0.99 a track for an AAC file.

I can only wish for the day where Apple has established itself enough as a distributor to enable independent artists to sell their music online one track at a time, kind of like an audioKagi (but that would take some serious chutzpah, to go after the RIAA's hoard that directly!)

Cheers
--ATA

There is nothing to stop you re-ripping that CD. Its the greatest flaw in the DRM system. Pressplay has an identical problem. Makes me wonder why they bother with encryption at all

I agree with starting a "war". But I do not agree with calling it a war. This is an issue of rights, and should be treated as one. We need a nationwide campaign to show the generally ignorant public the extent that the RIAA is, dare I say, EVIL. People are angry at Microsoft and calling them horrible things (rightly or wrongly) because of their monopolistic practices. Well how about a TV ad campaign along the lines of the "Truth" campaign? Showing the damage that the RIAA can cause artists, consumers, and our future? I think that the best course of action we could take would be a possible constitutional ammendment, setting a maximum limit for copyright after the creator's death (IE, if band A made song X in 1990, then after Y years after band A's death, song X would be free) This is the original way it was supposed to be, this was Queen Anne's law in England, the first copyright law in existence. The ammendment could also explain fair use, and make it a right, a constitutional right. I think an advertising campaign should also point out how much of a monopoly the RIAA really is (as we all know, americans HATE monopolies).
Well, I'm done rambling.
Phoenix

I have a MAC but its not hooked up to the net right now. I want to switch over to it by this summer. rid myself of MS/OSs.

Perhaps the proper term would be: Revolution

Pheonix is right of course. Cant just go around talking about this war. Damages our image. I spend more than enough time trying to tell people not to compare the RIAA to oppressive countries and complaining about people who cant say a single sentence without swearing two or three times. Regardless of how accurate the statements are, they just make us look like fanatics.

TV time is very expensive, and few channels would be willing to advertise this. Gateway had trouble because the advert contained a link to a website which contained one paragraph against the CDTPBA. Think we would stand a chance of getting on TV? Something a little more grassroots like would be more successful, like handing out leaflets outside record shops or botcott-riaa.com bumper stickers. Low budget, easy, and effectively gets the message into the real world where its needed.

Unfortunatly my own attempts havn't gone very well. Im just too weird for anyone to take seriously . I tried to talk to the CD-a-week people at school, but they know I am oversensitive to noise and dislike me anyway, so they respond by turning the CD player up so I cant get any work done. I may have to smash it. It wont be the first time.

In principle I completely with you when it comes to protecting consumer rights.

However, the record labels are p*ssed because people swap and obtain music which they did NOT pay for. Thats the issue and what we are seeing now are the consequences of it.

Now lets take a side step into computer software. Pirating of it is rampant - make no mistake. Authors and publishers taking the theft of their software very seriously.

Why should artists feel any different!

Let me put this another way, would you go and rob the nearest bank today? NO, of course not. You know the risks of doing this are high and you will go to jail. This is what stops most people from doing illegal stuff - the fear of getting caught.

With software and music theft, the chances of that happening are nil. You know it, I know it, and so do the record companies.

Here's another interesting analagy. Why don't you leave you car doors open overnight? Of course, you most certainly won't. WHY? Because there is a greater chance someone will steal it!

If the record companies knew that there music was safe from theft, they wouldn't give a rats ass about DRM - simply because they know all music on the streets would have been purchased.

So what's the answer - I don't know to be honest.

I will tell you what I do know, no matter what scheme they come up with, there will always be people who steal music and software and money for that matter.

Where do you draw the line!!!

Crash

What if you already PAID for that music in different media like I have and lots of others have? Why should we be forced again to repay for the same song times times over? Everything I now share I have paid for over the years in every form that they've converted to and if I share some of those files it should be noone of their darn business. and I'll be damned if I'm going to keep on shelling out money for the same songs over and over again just to satisfy the RIAA.

that should have been 'ten times' over.

CrashKart -- Here's a slight difference that you overlooked.

If you walk into a bank and steal the money, you've got the money and the bank doesn't have it any more.

If I leave my keys in my car and the door open, chances are that if someone steals it the car won't be in my driveway any longer.

If you "steal" an mp3 file from me (which I am actually willingly giving away at no charge), the original is still there.

You didn't "take" anything of value from me. You created additional value from something that was not diminished.

You have stolen nothing from me.

SinisterX writes : "What if you already PAID for that music in different media like I have and lots of others have? Why should we be forced again to repay for the same song times times over? Everything I now share I have paid for over the years in every form that they've converted to and if I share some of those files it should be noone of their darn business. and I'll be damned if I'm going to keep on shelling out money for the same songs over and over again just to satisfy the RIAA."

gdZiemann writes : "If you walk into a bank and steal the money, you've got the money and the bank doesn't have it any more.
If I leave my keys in my car and the door open, chances are that if someone steals it the car won't be in my driveway any longer.
If you "steal" an mp3 file from me (which I am actually willingly giving away at no charge), the original is still there.
You didn't "take" anything of value from me. You created additional value from something that was not diminished.
You have stolen nothing from me."
........................

You are both assuming you own the music / software. This is not so. Both are provided under license to you to play/use software.
Just because the local DJ buys a copy of his favourite CD does not mean he can then play it over the airways on his show. That is an altogether different license - one where commercial gains are at work.
You do not have the right to give the songs away. Did you know it is technically illegal to "give" or "sell on" software to someone else without the publisher permission?
I don't agree with the way the RIAA/labels are handling this but I do see their viewpoint.
If your livelyhood depended on royalty payments which sudden disappeared because your next door neighbour was giving away your song/software free of charge without your permission, how would you feel?
The RIAA are not that bothered about you copying the files on your CD so YOU can listen to them on your iPod/MP3 player (they let it happen with audio cassettes for last 20 years. What they are p*ssed about is that through the internet, 100 million people can potentially grab the music track you purchased legally. This means of course that those 100 million people may not end up buying the track - what the hell for - you've just given it to them for free!
It's no different to going into a record store and stealing 10/20 CDs worth of music. The difference with the internet is that there is no physical CD - it's just the music you are stealing.

I can hazard a guess that if there was no software piracy, then Microsoft would be worth $100 billion not $50 billion (or what ever they are worth these days). All those independant artists and software publishers could live a VERY comfortable life if everyone who used their software paid for it.

Mark my words, the will governments enforce more draconian laws onto consumers. The day will come when it will be legal for publishers to scan computers for software/music/films.

A lot of people mention the freedom-of-speech and privacy, etc. Unfortunately these freedoms come with responsibility. Ab Lincoln did not intend the these freedoms for people who break the law or for terrorists to plot the destruction of the twin towers. Therefore you can not hide behind them. Because of blatent file sharing (theft) the RIAA have decided to withdraw some of those freedoms the artists/labels have thus far granted to the public - simply because sheer of the sheer scale of the theft.
Apple's music store has resulted in over 1 million transactions. This means poeple are willing to pay for music if they can get hold of it. I will finish by saying that if the RIAA had sponsored this kind of music downloading 5 years ago, none of this would be happening today.

To summarise, there is nothing wrong with ripping songs off CD to transfer them to another medium (cassette tape/DVD/hard disks). Passing that music on is WRONG for many reasons. The way the RIAA and governments are handling this is WRONG. It's all about education and respect for somebody else's hard work!

CrashKart, while you brought up some good points, there are some things you failed to even recognize, such as being able to get music you already paid for, but not having to pay for it again.

How should, I the consumer be able to get music that I've already paid for, but lost? It's not reasonable for me to pay for the same thing again and again. Yes, it's illegal to distribute music without the proper allowance of doing so, but when you can't find any other alternative, what choice is left?

Agreed, I think people who go looking for music which they have bought and subsequently lost should have a mechanism to do this. There certainly is in the software world.

However, I do believe the majority of swappers download a substancial amount of music and listen to it. They may buy a few after listening to their library of music - which is the main argument often arising in the argument for music-swapping. Unfortunately, all those artists who they've just listened to - but don't decide to buy - loose out.

Even if these guys get 20cents, it makes it worth while because hundreds of thousands or millions times 20cents can not to be sniffed at. Which is why I would buy from the likes of Musicstore rather than use Kazaa. the Fairplay policy Apple/Labels have come up with is not too restrictive.

Basically, the RIAA/labels do not trust the public to honestly pay for their music because (and I've said this before) there is little or no comeback for breaking the copyright law.

What does "copyright" mean? It means, you can not copy "something" without the owners permission. The RIAA have now said that "the public" do not have the right to copy the music in the form you have purchased it in, to another format. Whether this law is right or wrong - or should be changed to cover CD-to-AAC conversion is what's up for debate (amongst other things of course).

People resent being told what they can or can not do. That is the nature of laws and rules. Some you like, others you don't but it is supposed to protect us from ourselves. What does that mean?

Well, one day you are a spotty 18 year old downloading other people's music. Five years later you are a major recording artist (megastar) who sells millions of records. Now then, I would hazaard a guess that you would not be too impressed if 50% of your fan base stole music from other people rather than buy it for themselves. The same is true if you were only a fringe band with moderate success - except you would probably find it very hard to earn a crust with that level of theft.

I could go on and on so I'll stop now. I think my three posts have raised enough awareness of what file-swapping really means. The issues are:-

1. The legality of backing up YOUR songs, transferring content between computers/MP3 players, etc.
2. The belief that we own the music we buy - no we don't - we own the right to play it for personal use.
3. The right to obtain the music in whatever format we choose. The Internet has been around long enough.
4. The RIAA/Labels need to pull their collective heads out of the ground, educate their artists, put up a good business model and engage!
5. Entice the file-swappers to use their services. It does work - Apple have proved it beyond a doubt. Bear this in mind - MusicStore is only available in the US, for Mac users running OSX. I would hazaard a guess that that amounts to around 2million users tops. Now Apple stated that over 1million songs were downloaded in the first week! now imagine Windows and international users - you do the math.

Crash

Whatever. You sound a little bitter. Of course everyone who can is trying to control all the media. They always have and always will. For the masses of dullards that listen to the top 40 crap thats offered up as music they don't seem to care either way. I guess they're too busy paying $1.99 to vote for their next Idol or Survivor. For any of us who are here, actually seeking out information and points of view on DRM we all knwo that there are going to be plenty of ways around it and as long as we're not looking to make a profit from our actions, no DRM Gestapo is going to hunt us down. Let Microsoft get control of the music, who cares? Do you honestly believe it will take more than a week before a new workaround is available to anyone that wants one?