in retrospect

« spam is taking over the world | back to in retrospect | talk about overcompensation »

October 10, 2003

rude awakening

ok, so last year when i read this article about Sony's multi-million dollar CD encryption software being trumped by running a black marker around the edge, i thought it was downright hilarious.

then yesterday, learning about the paper written by a princeton graduate student, explaining that if you simply hold down the SHIFT key to disable SunComm's CD encryption software used by BMG/Arista label records. i was delighted yet again.

now i'm not delighted that people steal music, because i do pay for mine. but if i purchase the CD and want to upload the files to my MP3 player, well then i have to copy the files.

really how is it so different from a dual cassette recording making a copy of the tapes? or what's to prevent someone from just recording the audio directly? now i don't condone people copying and selling the music for profit...but copying the music to listen to it during your morning run? that seems harmless, well at least as harmless and copying it to a cassette for your circa 1985 sony walkman.

and then to hear that SunComm is suing the student for publishing the paper when they knew about the flaw all along? again, just wrong.

my argument is not that the music should be free, but that the music industry figure out a better way to make money from music that may include a little copying and sharing. and hey, maybe their margins get damaged a little. big deal -- other companies have had to deal with decreased revenue and margins due to enhanced communication facilitated by new technologies.

i mean should Random House sue for people emailing each other excerpts of books? or maybe they should sue the us postal service if i should make a photocopy of a book and send it to my mother to read? or maybe they should sue Xerox for making the copier?

or maybe SunComm should sue Yahoo! and CNN for publishing the story about the student that published the paper. they have deeper pockets, and frankly i wouldn't have heard about it otherwise. or wait, are they afforded protections under the First Amendment that us ordinary citizens aren't? i think we know the answer to that.

at any rate, i don't think the suing is going to prevent copying and digital distribution of music.

i agree with Caravaggio in the English Patient, "I don't think anyone should own music."

it belongs to the musicians when they create it, and listeners when they listen to it. i say the record companies fairly compensate the musicians from the get go. and they should figure out how to make money selling that music by becoming a little more nimble by adapting their business model to the times.

or maybe they won't learn and they'll rack up millions in legal fees, putting themselves out of business and clearing the way for companies with a better idea for earning a living making and selling music.

Posted by heidijanet at October 10, 2003 11:38 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.inretrospect.org/cgi-bin/mt-ping.cgi/61

Comments

The problem is that the music industry believes that it should be guaranteed its business, that it shouldn't have to work or change. This, quite simply, is wrong. It's using the government to do its dirty work, lobbying for laws that limit our rights to do what we want with things that we buy.

Suing is going to backfire against them one of these days, when they decide to sue someone and they find that that someone has money and a desire to fight. I await that day patiently. It will come.

Posted by: Ryan at October 11, 2003 02:10 PM

Post a comment