Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Music labels are bleeding, says anti-copy company Midbar
By on
September 04, 2002 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
- by Tina Gasperson -
Midbar, the company that has been selling a lot of anti-copying technology to music publishers, says it is just that: a technology provider. "It's up to the labels which of the CD products they want to implement," says Midbar's v.p. of sales and marketing, Noam Zur. Consumers with complaints need to contact the music companies, not Midbar, he says.
Midbar, the company that has been selling a lot of anti-copying technology to music publishers, says it is just that: a technology provider. "It's up to the labels which of the CD products they want to implement," says Midbar's v.p. of sales and marketing, Noam Zur. Consumers with complaints need to contact the music companies, not Midbar, he says.
Zur wants to make sure that Midbar's technology is presented in a fair light,
something he believes did not happen in a previous NewsForge article that
pointed out problems with the Midbar anti-copying scheme, particularly the
CDS-100, which prevents the playback of a "protected" CD on a computer CD-ROM
drive -- sometimes even causing damage to the computer.
He stressed the fact that the CDS-100 technology was created intentionally to prevent operation on a computer CD-ROM drive. When asked about the issue of fair use, a provision of copyright law which says that citizens are allowed to make copies of copyrighted materials for certain uses, Zur calls that a "label question -- we're here to provide according to market needs, market recommendations, and market requests."
Zur agrees that the labels have not been completely forthcoming in sharing with consumers which CDs will work with what. "In Japan, all protected CDs are labeled. In the U.S., they haven't reached a standard because they haven't agreed on what should be said."
NewsForge has received many emails from users in response to the recent article, many of which contain claims that the felt-tip marker hack does indeed still work on CDs "protected" by Midbar's technology. Zur now admits that no anti-copying technology is 100% unbreakable, even though the company previously claimed that felt tip workarounds had been "completely neutralized," but seems to infer that using a felt tip marker on a CD will damage it. When we mentioned that, to the mind of a consumer desperate enough to try the felt-tip marker workaround, the CD is already corrupted, he replied, "Exactly, in their mind."
There is also some controversy about the CDS-200 technology in place, which allows users to playback the audio on a computer. The files that run are specially created compressed audio files that some say are lower in quality. "[The CDs] include a data track with a Windows player app on it, along with some heavily compressed versions of the tracks in an encrypted MP3-style format," says Jim Peters, the CD campaign coordinator for the UK Campaign for Digital Rights. "These are encoded at anything from 80kbps to 128kbps, which is very low quality when compared to the full-quality CD audio you would expect from a genuine CD disc.
"For years everyone has been making CD devices on the basis that people will put genuine CDs in them -- going outside that specification is asking for trouble, and that is what we are still getting even now," Peters says.
Zur disagrees that the quality isn't comparable. "Anything you listen to on the PC is compressed files." Zur says that Midbar CDs are redbook compliant and that there is no difference in audible quality.
"Some labels believe that PCs were not intended as playback machines," says Zur. "We're in the business of helping the music industry protect their copyright. Obviously some people do not like it because some people have copied it; they feel we are taking away some of their freedoms. We only provide the technology."
"The labels are bleeding. There's a lot of information published by the music industry to support that."
Zur says that music lovers should be pleased with the next Midbar release,
which is market-ready and waiting for buyers: CDS-300, which will use DRM
(digital rights management) technology to allow "secure" streaming downloads.
Comments
on Music labels are bleeding, says anti-copy company MidbarNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Bah, he's a filthy capitalist Jew. He doesn't have a "work" where he would listen to them anyway; probably has some Midbar-safe hi-fi crap instead of a computer.
I stopped buying cd's about 5 years ago. Mainly because of the price (£15 minimum - approx $23 US) in this country. If CDs were sold at £6/7 (about $10 US) then i probably would be 2 or 3 month. Even then i wouldnt buy a CD from a record label that thinks consumers need to be managed. Thankfully, most of the best music i hear is done by independent groups that make their songs freely available from their web sites or on gnutella. Until the record companies can offer quality and service like that they wont be counting my money.
I hear what you're saying. While I still buy CDs they're far fewer in number (3 this year when in the not so distant past it was 4+ a month) and never more than £10 in price, it pays to shop around.
I'm not a d/ler of mp3's myself so excuse any ignorance in this question. How do the independant groups that you support benefit *financially* from your downloading of their material? How are they recompensed for their crative efforts?
Please don't read into this support for the status quo, far from it. I'm all in favour of artists taking control of their material and bypassing RIAA like bodies, but how do we make this beneficial to the artists? The way I see it file sharing works to a point for an artist in getting them recognition. When it comes to getting bucks though they have to sell out to a media copropration. (Metallica anyone?)
Surely there's a better way?
I'm not a d/ler of mp3's myself so excuse any ignorance in this question. How do the independant groups that you support benefit *financially* from your downloading of their material? How are they recompensed for their crative efforts?
Please don't read into this support for the status quo, far from it. I'm all in favour of artists taking control of their material and bypassing RIAA like bodies, but how do we make this beneficial to the artists? The way I see it file sharing works to a point for an artist in getting them recognition. When it comes to getting bucks though they have to sell out to a media copropration. (Metallica anyone?)
Surely there's a better way?
Well, the mechanisms at work on the Internet would allow artists to interact directly with their listeners, and it's quite possible that many people who download music would also pay their favourite artists to produce it, even though the works could be traded for free.
One might doubt the mechanics of this, but consider other forms of media such as Internet content publishers whose products were continuously updated and of high quality during the "dot com" glory days, but are now somewhat less frequently updated and less relevant... excluding NewsForge, of course.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) People do move to subscription and other models to guarantee continued access to quality works, even though one could e-mail those works to friends, "rip" such sites, and so on, effectively providing those works for free.
The only reason why these market dynamics have never been tested out in music is because the music industry still consider themselves necessary in "promoting" the artists and "regulating" consumers. What this means in practice is that they want to sell you stuff that makes the most money for themselves and then, having identified a "trend", repackage the same tedious "music" using some over-promoted artists and ram that down the ears of the unfortunate punters.
Meanwhile, the only artists that usually make any money are the well-established ones. I believe that for all the others, the removal of the music industry cartel would clearly eliminate the increasingly irrelevant middlemen and potentially increase the artists' chances of seeing some of that money.
One might doubt the mechanics of this, but consider other forms of media such as Internet content publishers whose products were continuously updated and of high quality during the "dot com" glory days, but are now somewhat less frequently updated and less relevant... excluding NewsForge, of course.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) People do move to subscription and other models to guarantee continued access to quality works, even though one could e-mail those works to friends, "rip" such sites, and so on, effectively providing those works for free.
The only reason why these market dynamics have never been tested out in music is because the music industry still consider themselves necessary in "promoting" the artists and "regulating" consumers. What this means in practice is that they want to sell you stuff that makes the most money for themselves and then, having identified a "trend", repackage the same tedious "music" using some over-promoted artists and ram that down the ears of the unfortunate punters.
Meanwhile, the only artists that usually make any money are the well-established ones. I believe that for all the others, the removal of the music industry cartel would clearly eliminate the increasingly irrelevant middlemen and potentially increase the artists' chances of seeing some of that money.
If you ever the independent groups a 'donation' youll find they will make it as easy as possible. These guys/girls tend to be very friendly people anyway. Admittedly not all benefit financially, i have music from people i have never given any money, but i am not stealing, they offer it for free. Bands that i really like i will normally try to make a reasonable donation to. Normally, when im feeling generous (im only a student so i am very poor) i probably give close to £5 ($8US) for the equivalent of a full albums music. This is FAR more than they would get from a record company per album, so at the end of the day, they get better paid, i get better music, and im not paying for some dick head executive to fuel his porche.
"How do the independant groups that you support benefit *financially* from your downloading of their material? How are they recompensed for their crative efforts?"
They are compensated by the fact that if I like them I show up to their concerts. I pay to get in 15-20$, buy a T shirt or two at 20$ a whack, and possibly a CD or two from THEM ~15$ where they get most of the profit directly instead of the label ( which has already charged them for the privelege of selling their own CDs ).
More importantly they get to interact directly with their fans. Most of the CDs I have bought from them are signed copies. I always make it a point to tell bands that the only reason I'm there is that I got their stuff off a P2P network and am here just because I heard their stuff.
Sorry, at 15$ or so I can't grab stuff at random in the store. The radio stations play the same stuff, and there's no decent college stations or club scene nearby.
I'm not going to buy a one hit disc I heard on the radio at 15$. I feel ripped off. If I download the full disc and it's good, I either buy it, or at least make sure that I show up to their concerts when they happen to be in the area.
THIS is how they get their financial compensation. It's admittedly not as direct as many would like, but probably far more profitable than it would otherwise be. Instead of a 15$ CD sale, they get ticket price, T shirt proceeds, and maybe even the CD sale. Either way, they probably make out better this way.
They are compensated by the fact that if I like them I show up to their concerts. I pay to get in 15-20$, buy a T shirt or two at 20$ a whack, and possibly a CD or two from THEM ~15$ where they get most of the profit directly instead of the label ( which has already charged them for the privelege of selling their own CDs ).
More importantly they get to interact directly with their fans. Most of the CDs I have bought from them are signed copies. I always make it a point to tell bands that the only reason I'm there is that I got their stuff off a P2P network and am here just because I heard their stuff.
Sorry, at 15$ or so I can't grab stuff at random in the store. The radio stations play the same stuff, and there's no decent college stations or club scene nearby.
I'm not going to buy a one hit disc I heard on the radio at 15$. I feel ripped off. If I download the full disc and it's good, I either buy it, or at least make sure that I show up to their concerts when they happen to be in the area.
THIS is how they get their financial compensation. It's admittedly not as direct as many would like, but probably far more profitable than it would otherwise be. Instead of a 15$ CD sale, they get ticket price, T shirt proceeds, and maybe even the CD sale. Either way, they probably make out better this way.
As an aspiring musician, I have researched this topic quite a bit. CD sales are basically there to make the Record Execs rich. Only when the sales are HUGE do the artists get some real cash, of which the execs are seeing a LOT more. And regardless of what the sales look like, artists make assloads more cash by playing live. Many artists which aren't riding the limelight (311, Weird Al), continue to thrive through live touring, not by cd sales. What's sad is that very few bands seem to get this (PM5K being the most notable exception I can immediately think of).
Now, this is the case with your standard 4-piece rock band. I can't speak for engineered "artists" like Britney Spears and N'SYNC, as they were grown in test tubes and live in blister-wrap packages.
Many artists and execs would point to fame and fortune resulting from hit singles and high sales. What they don't get (or don't want you to get) is that the fame their hit single won them lead to larger venues and crowds, which is where the real cash came from. Alas, some people are dumb...
Now, this is the case with your standard 4-piece rock band. I can't speak for engineered "artists" like Britney Spears and N'SYNC, as they were grown in test tubes and live in blister-wrap packages.
Many artists and execs would point to fame and fortune resulting from hit singles and high sales. What they don't get (or don't want you to get) is that the fame their hit single won them lead to larger venues and crowds, which is where the real cash came from. Alas, some people are dumb...
copied cd's have a much smaller life span than originals (some copies last a matter of weeks at best in cars) so if you like an album you will still need to buy it . The trouble is that pop music wears off before the cd wears out, when or if the quality of music from the record companies improves they will find cd sales going up.
What??
Actually, that's true - albeit somewhat exagerated...
CD-R's have a short life span compared to hard-burned media. CD-RWs have an even shorter data lifespan. It works like this: the material that is on CD-R(W)'s is more maleable than the produced disks that you buy in the store. Because of that, it tends to wear out faster. Now, we're talking about a matter of thousands of plays on a burned CD - not a matter of weeks per-se. The "couple of weeks" measure could be true, though, when you consider that heat is a factor and in warmer climes, a car will get excessively hot in such a way that quality might degrade on the media - eventually resulting in the CD-R becoming unusable.
I've seen it happen... but if you take care of your CD-R's (keep them in cool places, out of the sun) they'll last for some time.
CD-R's have a short life span compared to hard-burned media. CD-RWs have an even shorter data lifespan. It works like this: the material that is on CD-R(W)'s is more maleable than the produced disks that you buy in the store. Because of that, it tends to wear out faster. Now, we're talking about a matter of thousands of plays on a burned CD - not a matter of weeks per-se. The "couple of weeks" measure could be true, though, when you consider that heat is a factor and in warmer climes, a car will get excessively hot in such a way that quality might degrade on the media - eventually resulting in the CD-R becoming unusable.
I've seen it happen... but if you take care of your CD-R's (keep them in cool places, out of the sun) they'll last for some time.
The physics of it are as follows:
A professionally produced CD-ROM is 'pressed', that is, there are actuall pits pressed into the plastic of the CD, which are then covered over by another layer of clear plastic. The laser reads the disks by detecting the slight pulses as the beam enters and exits these pits.
A CD-R or CD-RW disk doesn't have any pits. Instead, it has a layer of dye which changes color slightly when heated. When you burn a CD-R(W) the burner heats up small spots on the layer of dye, these darker spots thereby mimick the pulses of the read laser. If a CD-R(W) is left in direct sunlight, or in a hot area (a car for example), the untouched areas of dye can heat to the point that it begins to darken as well, causing the disk to become unreadable. The disks don't 'wear out' per say, they just become universally 'written' by a heat source.
A professionally produced CD-ROM is 'pressed', that is, there are actuall pits pressed into the plastic of the CD, which are then covered over by another layer of clear plastic. The laser reads the disks by detecting the slight pulses as the beam enters and exits these pits.
A CD-R or CD-RW disk doesn't have any pits. Instead, it has a layer of dye which changes color slightly when heated. When you burn a CD-R(W) the burner heats up small spots on the layer of dye, these darker spots thereby mimick the pulses of the read laser. If a CD-R(W) is left in direct sunlight, or in a hot area (a car for example), the untouched areas of dye can heat to the point that it begins to darken as well, causing the disk to become unreadable. The disks don't 'wear out' per say, they just become universally 'written' by a heat source.
Good to know - thanks.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
One point: IIRC, when pressed, it is not a thin layer of plastic that gets stamped with tiny pits; rather, it is the aluminum that is stamped. This thin layer of metal is then protected (albeit, barely) on one side by a super-thin layer of film, while the other side is protected by a much thicker layer of plastic.
Everything else I have to agree on.
Everything else I have to agree on.
um...yeah...right...WTF are you on?
maybe if you leave your [burned] cds to bake in your car every single day or subject them to some other equally insanely stupid behavior...otherwise they last a very long time indeed
maybe if you leave your [burned] cds to bake in your car every single day or subject them to some other equally insanely stupid behavior...otherwise they last a very long time indeed
The record labels are just riding on the fact that there's a recession of sorts going on in the USA and mislabeling their declining sales.
Piracy didn't affect them at it's peak, and it still isn't hurting them, they just want more money.
Piracy didn't affect them at it's peak, and it still isn't hurting them, they just want more money.
If they can't survive let'em die.
but of course they will INSIST on trying, what MONOPOLY ever hasn't?
and unfortunately they'll continue to do it and survive - at least for a while - the power structure is still a little too strong... ->as yettheir- work THEMSELVES at any price...IE any label that STEALS THEIR RIGHTS AND -IN FACT- THEIR WORK ---ITSELF--- FROM THEM!!!
see http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/contract<nobr>s<wbr></nobr> .html
and unfortunately they'll continue to do it and survive - at least for a while - the power structure is still a little too strong... ->as yettheir- work THEMSELVES at any price...IE any label that STEALS THEIR RIGHTS AND -IN FACT- THEIR WORK ---ITSELF--- FROM THEM!!!
see http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/contract<nobr>s<wbr></nobr> .html
Actually, its the liberals that want you to think were in a recession. Technically we are in a contractionary period. Meaning, while our economy is continuing to grow, it is not as fast as the natural rate of growth. Liberals and democrats call this an 'expansionary recession.' That makes sense doesnt it? Only in the mind of a liberal.
Whatever you want to call it, it's put a lot of companies in trouble.
What the media companies don't see to understand is this; they CANNOT make more money then they already do.
What I mean by this is simply that people have only so much money they can justify spending on entertainment, and that is how much they spend.
What the entertainment industry is doing by try so damned hard to prevent piracy is simply going to piss people off. They are restricting people from download new music to listen to; these people will buy LESS music because they don't care for the top 40(boat I'm in). They are restricting people from making mixed CDs of music they have legally purchased; these people will buy LESS music because they will have to switch to download this music if they want to make mixed CDs, unless they figure out how to circumvent the protection themselves. They are preventing college students from downloading music to listen too; these guys are poor and can't afford to spend money on music anyway, and when they get out of school they will be interested in a lot less mainstream music, therefore they will buy less music in the long run.
The industry is shooting itself in the gut, and we are all going to have to donate kidneys to keep it alive, because Congress will bow down to their wishes and force us to.
What I mean by this is simply that people have only so much money they can justify spending on entertainment, and that is how much they spend.
What the entertainment industry is doing by try so damned hard to prevent piracy is simply going to piss people off. They are restricting people from download new music to listen to; these people will buy LESS music because they don't care for the top 40(boat I'm in). They are restricting people from making mixed CDs of music they have legally purchased; these people will buy LESS music because they will have to switch to download this music if they want to make mixed CDs, unless they figure out how to circumvent the protection themselves. They are preventing college students from downloading music to listen too; these guys are poor and can't afford to spend money on music anyway, and when they get out of school they will be interested in a lot less mainstream music, therefore they will buy less music in the long run.
The industry is shooting itself in the gut, and we are all going to have to donate kidneys to keep it alive, because Congress will bow down to their wishes and force us to.
Since when did lack of money justify the act of downloading music you haven't paid for?
I want to eat steak every night, but I don't have the money. Can I just walk into a store and take it?
I want a new car to drive but I don't have the money. Can I just walk onto an auto lot and take it?
I'm a hundred years old and I need the latest miracle drug to yet again, postpone my inevitable death; but I can't afford it. Can I just go to a drug store and take it?
Yep, I sure feel bad for those poor poor college students. DRM is a sham, but that doesn't get rid of the fact that you should pay for the products you use, if those products require you to pay for them.
I want to eat steak every night, but I don't have the money. Can I just walk into a store and take it?
I want a new car to drive but I don't have the money. Can I just walk onto an auto lot and take it?
I'm a hundred years old and I need the latest miracle drug to yet again, postpone my inevitable death; but I can't afford it. Can I just go to a drug store and take it?
Yep, I sure feel bad for those poor poor college students. DRM is a sham, but that doesn't get rid of the fact that you should pay for the products you use, if those products require you to pay for them.
I don't think anyone was trying to justify anything. The previous poster was simply stating (and I agree) that people will spend X amount of money on entertainment. Whether this gets them Y amount of stuff, or Z amount of stuff is irrelevant. The amount of money spent will be nearly constant. If people can spend X amount of money to get Y amount of stuff, and download Z amount of stuff at no cost, then they'll have Y + Z amount of stuff but will still have spent X dollars on entertainment.
Maybe this isn't the case, but it makes sense and I think it was what the poster was getting at. I do not think the poster was trying to justify unauthorized copying.
sorry but this is pure bullshit, when you take a steak without paying the previous owner of the steak loses a steak and gets nothing back.
when you download music no one loses anything except maybe hypthetical future profits (and its not like the media companies are not making profits).
as for the drug example then yes, he should be able to get the drug regardless of how much he can pay, there are more important things than profit you know.
when you download music no one loses anything except maybe hypthetical future profits (and its not like the media companies are not making profits).
as for the drug example then yes, he should be able to get the drug regardless of how much he can pay, there are more important things than profit you know.
Setting aside the fact that there are a lot of production, distribution, and promotional costs that have to be covered, I guess the real question is what gives you the right to acquire someone else's property without paying for it?
I don't use P2P networks myself, I think I've got one dodgy MP3 (Last Nite by The Strokes), but let me just clarify the real question.
The record company have laid out $X to record the CD, and received $Y in return.
If I *genuinely* was not going to pay the $z they're charging for the CD, then $X and $Y are not affected whether I download it or not.
Of course, that begs the question, why download it if you're not interested enough to buy it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... in the case of the Strokes MP3 I have, I like the song, not enough to buy the album, I'm not prepared to fork out UKP4 or whatever it is these days for the single - I've listened to the track what, 4 times? And heard it on radio and TV 10 times. No way is it worth more than UKP1 to me, to be able to hear it whenever I want.
A *working* business model is to make sure that $X is less than $Y. If not, then either they spent too much on recording it (Steely Dan?!) or they overestimated the number of buyers.
That's capitalism, that's the way capitalism works. And the RIAA are nothing if not pure capitalists.
If they were losing money (as opposed to not making as much profit as they'd like) then maybe I'd feel slightly more compassionate, but it's still market forces at work.
If you can't sell it, it's not worth buying - that's always the vendor's problem, never the problem of the person who failed to buy the sh*t they put out.
What defines it as "their property"?
Or, more correctly, what justification can be used that it is their property. If an organized set of data (aka music, in this case) is in my possession, what exact mechanism is enacted that makes it "not my property" but rather, the property of somebody else?
Many of you will blindly say "Well, uh, duh - copyright"... but that would be a chicken and the egg argument. The earth is flat simply because it's flat, right?
You see, a concept of information as property simply has no quantifiable meaning. And quantification is part of the idea of property. You have to be able to quantify (read as: define the limit of) your property in order to be able to claim it as property.
Stating that information retains ownership once it leaves hands is like charging a visitor when he steps on my land because he's breathing "my air"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... simply because that air is present in the place that I call "mine"...
As a society, we have truly lost touch with the exact nature of property and seem to be both obsessed with attaining property rights, and at the same time giving up our property rights in areas where we should be focused on keeping them.
So, in short, I completely denounce your entire question because I don't for once believe that you can justify the idea that information can be property.
Or, more correctly, what justification can be used that it is their property. If an organized set of data (aka music, in this case) is in my possession, what exact mechanism is enacted that makes it "not my property" but rather, the property of somebody else?
Many of you will blindly say "Well, uh, duh - copyright"... but that would be a chicken and the egg argument. The earth is flat simply because it's flat, right?
You see, a concept of information as property simply has no quantifiable meaning. And quantification is part of the idea of property. You have to be able to quantify (read as: define the limit of) your property in order to be able to claim it as property.
Stating that information retains ownership once it leaves hands is like charging a visitor when he steps on my land because he's breathing "my air"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... simply because that air is present in the place that I call "mine"...
As a society, we have truly lost touch with the exact nature of property and seem to be both obsessed with attaining property rights, and at the same time giving up our property rights in areas where we should be focused on keeping them.
So, in short, I completely denounce your entire question because I don't for once believe that you can justify the idea that information can be property.
Need does not justify you being able to make claim to the products or the life of another. So no, you do not have any right to drugs, medicine, or any other product of another person.
So you say "vibrations" in the air should cost something. You must be seriously braindamaged or something. I believe you'd be the one who'd charge for the air we breathe if you had the chance.
- Voice of Ambience -
- Voice of Ambience -
OK - let me get this straight.
They develop a mechanism for making CD's not run on a computer, that makes it impossible for people to make legal backup copies of a CD, and in general limits what they can do with something that *THAT PERSON* purchased...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and we're supposed to like them?
What are they smoking?!
They develop a mechanism for making CD's not run on a computer, that makes it impossible for people to make legal backup copies of a CD, and in general limits what they can do with something that *THAT PERSON* purchased...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and we're supposed to like them?
What are they smoking?!
Well, one could remember that they're not located in the US (or even UK for that matter). The constitution, fair use laws of the US, and US copyright politics probably mean little if nothing to these guys.
I mean, afterall, if I were selling a technology to an integrator in another country, would I care that how they used the information I sold to them, was asking citizens to give up legal rights for their area? Hardly. My business and concern would solely be with supplying my clients with the solution they needed, and how they used that solution would be none of my concern.
I mean, afterall, if I were selling a technology to an integrator in another country, would I care that how they used the information I sold to them, was asking citizens to give up legal rights for their area? Hardly. My business and concern would solely be with supplying my clients with the solution they needed, and how they used that solution would be none of my concern.
Even regarding all of that, I find it laughable that they expect that people would have any sympathy for the way that they've been portrayed here.
maybe the music companies are losing money because
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2002 12:17 AM
They music they put out generally sucks. Every couple years there's a new boy band/teen girl/"hardcore grungy"/whatever thing they push which is identical to what came before. They have survived quite a while, and quite well, on marketing alone.
Perhaps it's as simple as, people don't give a shit anymore and you aren't losing money to illegal copying so much as shitty product. Just a thought.
Perhaps it's as simple as, people don't give a shit anymore and you aren't losing money to illegal copying so much as shitty product. Just a thought.
you are absolutely right. today's music is crap. i teach seventh grade, and i hear their cd's. it is shit. and for the record, i grew up on metallica (old), maiden, sabbath, zep, megadeth, slayer, priest, etc. music had meaning, felling. even today's "metal" bands, whatever, have their moment of fame on M freakin TV.
the music industry has been passing off crap on us for too long. we're just not buying it.
the music industry has been passing off crap on us for too long. we're just not buying it.
I agree. There are only so many musical notes to arrange. I think music as we know it has reached the bottom of the barrel. The arrogant music companies they don't allow songs to be revisited and modified to suit the current society, except for a price. Until the RIAA and their consorts are brought down things will continue to get worse for the general population.
Books will be next.
Where else but the publishing business can someone go and do one job (big or small) and continue to get paid for the rest of their life? Even the highly paid athletes have to work at it everyday just like everybody else.
Books will be next.
Where else but the publishing business can someone go and do one job (big or small) and continue to get paid for the rest of their life? Even the highly paid athletes have to work at it everyday just like everybody else.
". and for the record, i grew up on metallica (old), maiden, sabbath, zep, megadeth, slayer, priest, etc. music had meaning, felling"
Now those bands were truely crap; the bottom of the barrel. And you dare say that your student music is shit? No it is you who grew up in it.
BTW my erra was a decade before yours.
Now those bands were truely crap; the bottom of the barrel. And you dare say that your student music is shit? No it is you who grew up in it.
BTW my erra was a decade before yours.
Maiden was not crap you neo-nazi.
"Maiden was not crap you neo-nazi."
Not only are you a racist, but you're stupid. Well they usually go hand and hand. Because of my background, I couldn't be a neo-nazi. And by the way Maiden IS neo-nazi music.
Not only are you a racist, but you're stupid. Well they usually go hand and hand. Because of my background, I couldn't be a neo-nazi. And by the way Maiden IS neo-nazi music.
Of course the music labels are bleeding. Almost everyone is bleeding in this economy. The music companies are saying that they are losing money to piracy but it is really the bad economy. But it sounds better in support of their case that it is piracy.
... but there was no one left to speak up.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2002 12:42 AM
Zur makes a product whose design function is to infringe on the legal rights of others and then wants to disclaim responsibility for how it is used? Sounds to me vaguely like the architects of the Nazi gas chambers mumbling "Well, it's what we were paid to make<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but we didn't actually turn the gas on."
Watch where you step, I can hear mooing in the background.
If he ever takes 'the long view' of what he is doing, he will see that he is aping the very attitudes of the 'good Germans' who didn't care what happened to the gypsies because they weren't gypsies, the jews because they weren't jews and so on until the Nazis came to kick down THEIR door<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but there was no one left to care.
I am hoping that pointing out the parrallels between his behavior and that of "the good Germans" will be enough to jar him awake and make him realize how simple a matter it was for the Germans to turn their heads. Maybe the people who are behind all those surveillance cameras at every intersection will read this, too.
The restrictions in personal freedoms have not yet pinched Zur's foot. But they will<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they will. And they will pinch his children and his grandchildren<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... generations into the future. In my judgement, he is a fool. He may be a well-paid fool, but he is a fool nonetheless. All of his money will not protect his children from the consequences of his actions. The worm WILL turn.
He is not looking ahead to the welfare of the generations that are to follow him. He is acting as if there won't be any.
Zur is taking an active role in a larger trend toward the abolition of personal rights in favor of corporate rights. He can not deny awareness of, or responsibility for, this. Possibly this is a reaction to the unrestrained liberalism of the 60's and 70's. I sure don't know. But I do know that the 'fair use' doctrine is a right I had at birth and I intend to still have it at death.
Zur, you are an "anything for myself" kinda guy. Some people admire that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the ethically-challenged crowd. Some people, the crowd I hang with, are careful to wash their hands after shaking yours.
Mammon is a false god. Those who bend their knees to false gods can not stand erect before Jehovah.
Watch where you step, I can hear mooing in the background.
If he ever takes 'the long view' of what he is doing, he will see that he is aping the very attitudes of the 'good Germans' who didn't care what happened to the gypsies because they weren't gypsies, the jews because they weren't jews and so on until the Nazis came to kick down THEIR door<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but there was no one left to care.
I am hoping that pointing out the parrallels between his behavior and that of "the good Germans" will be enough to jar him awake and make him realize how simple a matter it was for the Germans to turn their heads. Maybe the people who are behind all those surveillance cameras at every intersection will read this, too.
The restrictions in personal freedoms have not yet pinched Zur's foot. But they will<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they will. And they will pinch his children and his grandchildren<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... generations into the future. In my judgement, he is a fool. He may be a well-paid fool, but he is a fool nonetheless. All of his money will not protect his children from the consequences of his actions. The worm WILL turn.
He is not looking ahead to the welfare of the generations that are to follow him. He is acting as if there won't be any.
Zur is taking an active role in a larger trend toward the abolition of personal rights in favor of corporate rights. He can not deny awareness of, or responsibility for, this. Possibly this is a reaction to the unrestrained liberalism of the 60's and 70's. I sure don't know. But I do know that the 'fair use' doctrine is a right I had at birth and I intend to still have it at death.
Zur, you are an "anything for myself" kinda guy. Some people admire that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the ethically-challenged crowd. Some people, the crowd I hang with, are careful to wash their hands after shaking yours.
Mammon is a false god. Those who bend their knees to false gods can not stand erect before Jehovah.
Re:... but there was no one left to speak up.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2002 01:01 AM
Comparing an entrepreneur peddling yet another unsuccessful anti-piracy lock to the Nazis and gas chambers... don't you think that's maybe just a bit of an exaggeration?
It's important to maintain perspective in these debates.
Re:... but there was no one left to speak up.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2002 01:33 AM
(different anonymous guy here)
Not really. All these things, the RIAA claiming piracy is killing them, these anti-copying measures, bills being proposed in governments to restrict our freedoms farther and farther, all add up to a very frightening future fairly reminiscent of Nazi Germany, or like various dystopian fictional works. Sure, right now you're just making the simple comparison (anti-copying technology 6 million dead) but think ahead to a future where you have to pay license fees for everything you watch and listen to, every time you do; where you have to pay license fees for books, and can be thrown in jail for letting someone else read them; where you can be thrown in jail for writing software without having a license to do so; where you can be thrown in jail for using an illegal operating system because such a thing facilitates "piracy" and "terrorism"; where ultimately everything you do, everywhere you go is kept track of by someone else in case you do something you're not supposed to because it's been made illegal by someone who stands to profit by such a law. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Zur is just as guilty in bringing this type of future into being as the Germans who built the gas chambers and concentration camps were guilty of causing what happened there 60 years ago.
Not really. All these things, the RIAA claiming piracy is killing them, these anti-copying measures, bills being proposed in governments to restrict our freedoms farther and farther, all add up to a very frightening future fairly reminiscent of Nazi Germany, or like various dystopian fictional works. Sure, right now you're just making the simple comparison (anti-copying technology 6 million dead) but think ahead to a future where you have to pay license fees for everything you watch and listen to, every time you do; where you have to pay license fees for books, and can be thrown in jail for letting someone else read them; where you can be thrown in jail for writing software without having a license to do so; where you can be thrown in jail for using an illegal operating system because such a thing facilitates "piracy" and "terrorism"; where ultimately everything you do, everywhere you go is kept track of by someone else in case you do something you're not supposed to because it's been made illegal by someone who stands to profit by such a law. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Zur is just as guilty in bringing this type of future into being as the Germans who built the gas chambers and concentration camps were guilty of causing what happened there 60 years ago.
Re:... but there was no one left to speak up.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2002 02:20 AM
Are you two guys members of the NRA, perchance? This sounds just like some of their arguments: "Today it's a ban on assault weapons. Tomorrow, jackbooted Federal agents will be knocking on your doors at any hour of the night demanding blah blah blah..."
Re:... but there was no one left to speak up.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 05, 2002 05:11 AM
Interesting, i live in New Zealand and i think that you might have less problems if you completely banned all handguns, submachineguns and any firearms that could be concealed easily on the person.
You could have an amnesty and allow an exchange of legally permitted weapons of this type for semiauto or bolt action rifles, preferably ones that could not be cut down. Make possesion of a handgun a serious crime, only the police or fbi could use them.
This would allow your right to bear arms (or right to arm bears -robin williams) and likely lower you crime rate and gun related deaths.
And you can't tell me that a handgun is a more effective military weapon than a semiauto rifle of type 222 or 308 is. The only reason for that law was to overthrow an oppressive government and handguns will not penetrate body armor where higher velocity rounds will.
You could have an amnesty and allow an exchange of legally permitted weapons of this type for semiauto or bolt action rifles, preferably ones that could not be cut down. Make possesion of a handgun a serious crime, only the police or fbi could use them.
This would allow your right to bear arms (or right to arm bears -robin williams) and likely lower you crime rate and gun related deaths.
And you can't tell me that a handgun is a more effective military weapon than a semiauto rifle of type 222 or 308 is. The only reason for that law was to overthrow an oppressive government and handguns will not penetrate body armor where higher velocity rounds will.
What is so terrible about owning submachineguns and pistols? Sure they can kill a relatively large amount of people in a short amount of time but so what. It is an object, property, yes it can be used to slaughter tons of human beings, yes I woulden't want to be machine-gunned or stabbed or punched, yes guns can kill your children. But what right do you have to take away this object from me because of what I am capable (read what i might) of committing with such an object? A gun isn't going to kill you sitting there (it isn't radioactive) or locked away in a safe, and probally won't kill you at the ranch or the shootin' range. It is an object. DeCSS is software, it can be used to "take" $$$ from big corps. Your anti-shoot-holes-in-things-device argument is the exact same one as the RIAA and the MPAA (it has the ability to allow/assist/or help someone do this ILLEGAL thing BAN IT! [btw "piracy " and murder are both illegal, altho "piracy" may not be wrong and is not a reprehensible act as is murder... and genocide - another thing guns are used for]) uses against free speach they don't like. Is it not hypocritical for you to use the same argument (OMG it CAN DO THIS!!!)? Yes I am a freesoftware programer and use GNU/Linux (brownie points from FSF?) as well as BSD. All "IP" that I produce is (C)'d under a free software license or the public domain including media. I'm not fat either<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P
"When guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns." We will then be ruled by those that have the guns.
Re:... but there was no one left to speak up.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 06, 2002 10:50 AM
You have a point in the right to bear arms and the body armor argument.
However, there are two major reasons I favor keeping the handguns. One is that I don't care to wander around with a rifle at all times should one of the neighborhood dogs decide to attack either me, or someone else. It's not a common event to be sure, but I don't care to be the one to sit around and do nothing should a large dog maul a small child.
A more important reason is that lots of people are just jerks. Personally, I suck at fist fighting. I have however, been in situations where simply reaching for my gun has prevented what was turning into a nasty situation, mugging or worse.
That same argument could also be made regarding women. Most women, and men for that matter, would not be able to physically fight an attacker. A gun MAY, or may not, change that. It does however give them another option. I used to drive an armored car for a living, so my viewpoint is likely VASTLY different than yours.
You could apply this argument to the whole RIAA situation. The technology CAN be used to inflict horrible damage ( to their wallets ). However, it also gives us, the consumer, options we would otherwise not have.
I used a laptop in my car to play CDs at one point because my sony discman died. Should my laptop suffer damage because I used that instead of a 100$ piece of harware?
Another ironic point to mention. If Sony and the other companies are so into anti-copy/pirate technologies, why do all the DVD players out there support mp3 playback? They've already said we just download all of the mp3s anyway, so why do they provide that feature? Oh yes, it's because the players without that feature don't sell quite as well as the others that have it...
However, there are two major reasons I favor keeping the handguns. One is that I don't care to wander around with a rifle at all times should one of the neighborhood dogs decide to attack either me, or someone else. It's not a common event to be sure, but I don't care to be the one to sit around and do nothing should a large dog maul a small child.
A more important reason is that lots of people are just jerks. Personally, I suck at fist fighting. I have however, been in situations where simply reaching for my gun has prevented what was turning into a nasty situation, mugging or worse.
That same argument could also be made regarding women. Most women, and men for that matter, would not be able to physically fight an attacker. A gun MAY, or may not, change that. It does however give them another option. I used to drive an armored car for a living, so my viewpoint is likely VASTLY different than yours.
You could apply this argument to the whole RIAA situation. The technology CAN be used to inflict horrible damage ( to their wallets ). However, it also gives us, the consumer, options we would otherwise not have.
I used a laptop in my car to play CDs at one point because my sony discman died. Should my laptop suffer damage because I used that instead of a 100$ piece of harware?
Another ironic point to mention. If Sony and the other companies are so into anti-copy/pirate technologies, why do all the DVD players out there support mp3 playback? They've already said we just download all of the mp3s anyway, so why do they provide that feature? Oh yes, it's because the players without that feature don't sell quite as well as the others that have it...
Not to mention, completely ineffective against an Israeli company. It's just liable to piss them off, not get them to think about their attitude.
That aside, the laws there are probably different on this sort of thing. It may not even affect them.
That aside, the laws there are probably different on this sort of thing. It may not even affect them.
Re:... but there was no one left to speak up.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 06, 2002 01:45 PM
Jehovah the homo! Nothing but a fudge stuffer.
If what Midbar and the record companies is doing really makes you mad perhaps you should support the many artists that are offering samples of their music for free. Comparing their actions to the folks that designed gas chambers is neither germaine nor particularly helpful.
Sure, your little bit of money doesn't really affect the record companies, but it makes a difference to the small-time artists that the record companies have left behind.
"We're in the business of helping the music industry protect their copyright. Obviously some people do not like it because some people have copied it; they feel we are taking away some of their freedoms. We only provide the technology."
After reading the entire article, this is what I've detemined it all boils down to. So let's look at this paragraph sentence by sentence, shall we?
1 - "We're in the business of helping the music industry protect their copyright."
Well what a convenient time for you to be in this business and to be able to offer the poor, ignorant music industry a mechanism to help them protect their copyright. It's a shame the industry doesn't have enough money to do it themselves in some reasonable fashion. We're just lucky that you came along with something to offer them in response to their over-lobbied knee jerk reaction.
2 - "Obviously some people do not like it because some people have copied it; they feel we are taking away some of their freedoms."
Some people don't like it? I can't imagine any consumer disliking technology that limits the use of the brand new CD they just dropped $16.99 to buy! How dare they! Who do these consumers think they are anyway? The part about taking away some of our freedoms just kills me. Of course you're taking away some of our freedoms, but since you stand to make big money from it, you can justify it, eh? I'm sure you'll sleep much easier on a matress full of Benjamins.
3 - "We only provide the technology."
Yep - just like Oppenheimer, Fermi, et. al. only provided the technology for the atomic bomb.
This message list will self-destruct...
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_L<nobr>a<wbr></nobr> w.html
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_L<nobr>a<wbr></nobr> w.html
the recording companies have cut a fat hog in the ass, and they're the ones bleeding. I can't imagine how selling CDs with technology designed to potentially damage the property of their customers or calling their consumer base "thieves" could be of any value. Courtney love, and janis ian are on target with their views(don't have a link for you), but I predict that fair use is a cooked turkey, regardless of legal precedents. It is also odd that one of the most informed societies in the world can have perceptions as stupid as those who support this trash.
who's informed??
***Zur disagrees that the quality isn't comparable. "Anything you listen to on the PC is compressed files." Zur says that Midbar CDs are redbook compliant and that there is no difference in audible quality.***
isn't this just a straight LIE? isn't this something like you would except executive buffing on usa today or something, NOT TO interview going to newsforge read by mostly geeks. some teenagers going wowziw00t might buy this...
in other news, zur doesn't have ears, or thinks all people listen to music on pc through 5$ equipment, and ONLY listen to mp3's that are 80-128kbps
www.machinaesupremacy.com
FREE music. and pretty darn good!
isn't this just a straight LIE? isn't this something like you would except executive buffing on usa today or something, NOT TO interview going to newsforge read by mostly geeks. some teenagers going wowziw00t might buy this...
in other news, zur doesn't have ears, or thinks all people listen to music on pc through 5$ equipment, and ONLY listen to mp3's that are 80-128kbps
www.machinaesupremacy.com
FREE music. and pretty darn good!
I have a cable I got from Radio Shack for $4.95 that will circumvent this "technology" no matter what it does when placed in a cdrom. It connects my cd player to the mic jack on my computer. The quality is fine if you consider mp3 and ogg are lossy compression methods anyway.
When the music labels realize that people will get their music into mp3 or ogg format regardless, companies like Midbar will become irrelevant. Funny thing is, though, this can only be pointed out to them through piracy - by that I mean if a Midbar protected cd's can still be found on gnutella, why would they continue to pay money to Midbar?
When the music labels realize that people will get their music into mp3 or ogg format regardless, companies like Midbar will become irrelevant. Funny thing is, though, this can only be pointed out to them through piracy - by that I mean if a Midbar protected cd's can still be found on gnutella, why would they continue to pay money to Midbar?
Everybody seems to think that there is an issue of somebody stomping on their rights here. Fact is Zur has every right to create DRM technology, and his customers have every right to sell it.
How can this be? Quite simple, WE HAVE A FREE MARKET ECONOMY. If you disagree with this don't buy music employing his technology, or better yet don't buy music. If CDs were boycotted for six months I can guarantee you would see changes.
So quit whining and let your dollars do the talking. Every time we drag congress into an issue our rights become less and less. Laws intended to increase our freedoms never do.
Our freedoms our immutable until legislation is passed allowing control over that freedom. Once a law is in effect that right becomes the domain of the government and we lose another freedom.
How can this be? Quite simple, WE HAVE A FREE MARKET ECONOMY. If you disagree with this don't buy music employing his technology, or better yet don't buy music. If CDs were boycotted for six months I can guarantee you would see changes.
So quit whining and let your dollars do the talking. Every time we drag congress into an issue our rights become less and less. Laws intended to increase our freedoms never do.
Our freedoms our immutable until legislation is passed allowing control over that freedom. Once a law is in effect that right becomes the domain of the government and we lose another freedom.
No you don't, you have mixed economy.
This is easy, I just won't buy any more CD's. And if more people refuse to buy these CD's, profits will go lower and they won't make them. Don't buy them! If you buy it - you support, and its your fault we have to live with it.
It's
- JUST
- THEIR
Midbar says it is just a technology provider. "It's up to the labels which of the CD products they want to implement". Consumers with complaints need to contact the music companies, not Midbar, he says.
aka: "We just manufacture the DDT, we don't spray it. We are just responding to market demand". Or a stalking, harassing reporter who protests "Why attack me? I'm just doing my job."
When will we be free of the pestilent notion that "the market" is the highest good? That any act is OK, or at least not your responsibility, if someone else is paying you to do it?
What did you expect from a lot of jews? All they are want is money and other peoples land. They don't care about anyones rights, all they care about is profit.
"The labels are bleeding. There's a lot of information published by the music industry to support that."
Yeah, there's a lot that says otherwise, too. Some of it from recording artists themselves. And for te poor employees of the record companies, how's it feel to see all those profits going into campaign contributions....
"Some labels believe that PCs were not intended as playback machines,"
I betcha there's a lot more IT pros / computer geeks out there than think the RIAA has no right or business deciding what computers -- or any comsumer elctronics device ---- should or should not be used for.
Yeah, there's a lot that says otherwise, too. Some of it from recording artists themselves. And for te poor employees of the record companies, how's it feel to see all those profits going into campaign contributions....
"Some labels believe that PCs were not intended as playback machines,"
I betcha there's a lot more IT pros / computer geeks out there than think the RIAA has no right or business deciding what computers -- or any comsumer elctronics device ---- should or should not be used for.
I wonder?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 04, 2002 07:24 PM#