Reasonable way of fighting MP3 piracy

[acole1]

Yahoo released this article about a German idea for limiting MP3 piracy. It looks like he has some good ideas, and the effects on legal music purchasers is extremely minimal.

What do you think? :thumbsup: or :thumbsdown:

 

[3chordcharlie]

The music industry does not want a 'reasonable' solution, they want to get rid of nasty, inconvenient fair use protections so they can move to a license-based model and extract revenue from listeners all the time, instead of once.

I can't see something like this having a chance while the recording industry still has the American government solidly in their back pocket.

 

[Sunbird]

This seems to be for online downloaded files only, or can they do CD's too?

 

[lozina]

Sony had the best idea. root kits FTW!!!

 

[Tab]

Yea, like someone is going to download a watermarked mp3...

 

[TallBill]

Personally, I dont care. I wouldn't care if teh entire music industry crashes.

 

[Meuge]

The entire concept of the record industry in its current form is outdated. They are clinging to a business model that people no longer want to abide by (have a crappy artist make 1 good song/record, and charge 10-15X the song value for the whole record, that's only being bought for one song).

 

[Cerb]

The system lets content providers, such as music studios, embed a watermark in their downloadable MP3 files.

Do I even have to attempt to explain why this won't work?

In case anyone misses it:
CD->EAC/Konquerer/etc.->FLAC->LAME->MP3 file

This will, once again, affect only dumb users who want to give away their rights; not having the slightest affect on the tech savvy users or serious pirates.

Then again, the larger failing is the business model of selling songs, versus making good albums that are really worth $15-$20 (I complain about price, but I would pay $17 again for Rumours and Made In Japan--more than $8 for Facelift or S.A.P. isn't worth it, though).

 

[acole1]

Originally posted by: Cerb

This will, once again, affect only dumb users who want to give away their rights; not having the slightest affect on the tech savvy users or serious pirates.

There is no way to stop illegal downloading of MP3's but this will help limit the quantity of MP3's available to download. You?re avg. Joe will think twice before uploading, or downloading an MP3 that is watermarked.

And how exactly does this "give away [the] rights" of the music buyers? I didn't know we had a right to distribute music through P2P It actually enforces the rights of music buyers if it is allowed to catch on because it doesn?t, in any way, effect the law abiding music buyer. You can even burn a CD for your friend and there is no ill effect.

Using this causes no harm to the music buyer. Compare that to root kits, burn limits, etc. that the music industry would like to impose. This seems like a golden alternative (if the RIAA will bite).

 

[Stunt]

Subscription based music!!!

All other media is paid through subscription, why do the recording companies feel the need to equate music with a physical thing?
If music is a physical thing, the mp3's I'm downloading are not music; they are merely a bunch 1's and 0's.
TV personalities get paid through TV subscriptions, ads and the like; how is that so impossible for music and artists?!

Don't even get me started on the record breaking CD sales since mp3's came out (exposure and press is a good thing!), and how artists make far more through concerts than they do through measly record contract income.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: acole1

Originally posted by: Cerb

This will, once again, affect only dumb users who want to give away their rights; not having the slightest affect on the tech savvy users or serious pirates.

There is no way to stop illegal downloading of MP3's but this will help limit the quantity of MP3's available to download. You?re avg. Joe will think twice before uploading, or downloading an MP3 that is watermarked.

No, it will limit the avilability of copies of officially sanctioned initially downloaded MP3s. If a single person removes the watermarking, or uses an actual CD, that's it--it will have become near useless. One person.

And how exactly does this "give away [the] rights" of the music buyers?

I didn't say it does, I said they do, meaning those people who would download such things, including current DRM music that is on a very limited rental.

Using this causes no harm to the music buyer. Compare that to root kits, burn limits, etc. that the music industry would like to impose. This seems like a golden alternative (if the RIAA will bite).

Those means would also not affect those who actually intended to massively distribute and possibly sell copies of, the content. Hence, "once again", meaning that the MediaMax(sp) and XCP Aurora would also not have any effect.

I say this having turned autostart off as standard practice, since back when using Windows 95, and using dedicated ripping applications since it become useful to format-shift (when MP3 conversion was faster than real time). My PC was completely immune years before this technology existed. Anyone with a financial gain to make by becoming safe from it would have easily be able to Google a solution.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Subscription based music!!!

All other media is paid through subscription, why do the recording companies feel the need to equate music with a physical thing?
If music is a physical thing, the mp3's I'm downloading are not music; they are merely a bunch 1's and 0's.
TV personalities get paid through TV subscriptions, ads and the like; how is that so impossible for music and artists?!

Don't even get me started on the record breaking CD sales since mp3's came out (exposure and press is a good thing!), and how artists make far more through concerts than they do through measly record contract income.

If this were implented with full quality music and and open standards for interoperability, I'd be all over it. The last part means they (major monopoly record labels) lose some control, which scares them.

Actually, David Bowie has gone out on a similar limb, claiming music and video will be paid for like water and electricity in, I think around 7-8 years or so. No ads, though...and I will probably still whine about clipression.

 

[0roo0roo]

choice, give users choice. buy lossless and mp3 online at reasonable prices. not the 2.50 for a new song they were talking about when griping about itunes. sell albums for 9.99 and no more. 14+ is a gamble that makes people bitter on the whole idea of buying music when they keep getting left with albums with 2 good songs don't drm, it only punishes people who buy your stuff. go figure pushes away those who would buy your stuff but can't stand drm aka big brother. people who hand u money shouldn't be treated like sh*t.

roll out non drm dvd-a. give consumer more bang for the buck like dvd did for video, premium quality+convenience. not some crippled bs people can't easily rip tunes for their ipods and stuff. gone are the days when people sat down next to their phonograph to listen to a whole album. people want to make their own mixes/jukebox. that drm just f*cks it all up.

 

[Cerb]

Actually, the days of that kind of listening aren't gone--they've just grown up with the tech. I do sit down and listen to a whole album...but not the original media . I have a DAP, PC, and then there's a Squeezebox.

From what I've read, part of why DVD-A took so long in the first place was the DRM implementation...last I saw, DVD-A and SACD were both eclipsed by vinyl (actual sales I can't find, as Neilson charges money for that): http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2005midYrStats.pdf

 

[MadRat]

So why is the tape cheaper than a CD if the royalties to the author/singer are supposed to be the same?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: MadRat
So why is the tape cheaper than a CD if the royalties to the author/singer are supposed to be the same?

Most likely it has something to do with the additive identity property.

 

[Kadarin]

The music industry doesn't so much care about "piracy" per se, so much as it cares about squashing P2P is a potential competing distribution model. They don't want to lose control of their gravy train and become irrelevant in the digital age.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Actually, the days of that kind of listening aren't gone--they've just grown up with the tech. I do sit down and listen to a whole album...but not the original media . I have a DAP, PC, and then there's a Squeezebox.

From what I've read, part of why DVD-A took so long in the first place was the DRM implementation...last I saw, DVD-A and SACD were both eclipsed by vinyl (actual sales I can't find, as Neilson charges money for that): http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/pdf/2005midYrStats.pdf

yup, the stupid morons lost their chance to have every dvd player on the market also be a dvd audio player. their installed base woulda been huge by now. but they were waiting on their freaking drm. idiots.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Subscription based music!!!

All other media is paid through subscription, why do the recording companies feel the need to equate music with a physical thing?
If music is a physical thing, the mp3's I'm downloading are not music; they are merely a bunch 1's and 0's.
TV personalities get paid through TV subscriptions, ads and the like; how is that so impossible for music and artists?!

Don't even get me started on the record breaking CD sales since mp3's came out (exposure and press is a good thing!), and how artists make far more through concerts than they do through measly record contract income.

Subscription-based is what they want...

Television is sort-of done this way, but if you're comparing newspapers and magazines as 'media' here, how would you feel about paying a subscription fee over and over again to read the same isue of a magazine? And would you accept advertisements everytime you wanted to listen to music? The trailers at the beginning of DVDs that we've already paid for are annoying enough!

If this type of business model taes off, I think it will damage the music industry, and I don't think the indsutry 'gets it'. The one thing that lets artists make a real statement and get fans excited about them is the 'album' which is gradually becoming obsolete.

 

[pinion9]

"If, for instance, you purchase and download a CD, burn a copy and give it to a friend and that person puts it on a file sharing network, our system will trace that music back to you and, depending on the legal system of the country you're in, you could be [hit] with an expensive fine," Kip says. "This could certainly help deter online music piracy."

What about if I let a friend borrow a CD and he rips it and gives it back? Then I can be fined? Wow, what a beautiful system. This is doomed from the onset and will not work.

Plus with Tunebite you can just record the analog signal as a new MP3. Sure, it isn't as high of quality (DAC -> ADC) but I can still listen to the music at decent quality. If I REALLY enjoy the artist I buy the album (Marilyn Manson and NIN always get my cash.)