13 Dec
2002
13 Dec
'02
11:10 p.m.
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Wayne M. Smith wrote:
Wayne, I can't buy your argument for the same reason I can't believe
anything the RIAA or MPAA or any of those silly acronym-based
organizations say. They don't back them up with hard data, because if
they did, we would probably find that sales are only increasing. When the
recording industry is willing to allow an independent auditor to check its
books and report the findings, then I'll believe it. Until then, I don't
take their word for anything.
Every recording contract with a participation clause has an audit provision in
it that allows the artist to come in with their own auditor/accountant and have
full access to the books. Same is true in the movie biz. So I don't really
know what you're referring to.
Speaking
for my personal CD purchasing habits, I'd have to say
O'Reilly's observations match my practices. For one, I don't like
"Top 40" or mainstream music. Most all of it is crap. And nearly none
of the music I enjoy gets played on the radio stations in my area; so
my ability to find out about music I like is somewhat hampered. If
someone recommends a song or a band to me, they'll often point me in
the direction of some of their MP3s. If I like their work, I buy
their CDs.
You are to be lauded, but you are in a shrinking minority. Also, I think it's pretty petty for the recording
industry especially to
be griping about losing sales, especially when it robs most recording
artists blind anyway. But that's another (and even more off-topic)
thread.
I see you've been reading the popular press and the gospel according to
Courtney
Love.
I understood
his point, but I don't agree that the studios/record
companies are obligated to do anything or face having their content
stolen. There's a difference between being annoyed and therefore not
buying something, and being annoyed and using that as a justification
for stealing. The argument some make that the studios/record companies
need to pander to those who would otherwise steal from them really
doesn't fly.
Well, we are basically dealing with human behavior here, and no matter how
much pissing and moaning and bitching and griping by the recording
industry and no matter how many silly laws that do not at all cater to the
general benefit of society are passed, people will still do what people
do. The trick is to figure out how to make money from it, rather than
being completely obnoxious about it as the recording industry has been so
far.
O'Reilly was right on, and history will prove him
(and all the others
striking the same chord) right.
But it does preclude distributing that research, and I can't believe you
could support that provision.
It depends on what you mean by "distributing that research." If you
mean
unrestricted distribution of a hack -- particularly when you know that 99.9% of
those who will use it have no interest in "research" (other than to
"research"
whether they can crack a DVD) -- then I do support it.
lousy CSS
encryption is a crime. I think that's absurd, and I'm really
surprised that /anyone/ on /this/ list would agree with the idea that
reverse engineering something is, in itself, a criminal act.
No, he didn't, but he did distribute DeCSS, and then others did. The DCMA
doesn't preclude reverse engineering CSS for purely encryption research or
security testing, and I'm certain the MPAA has not said otherwise. The movie biz
is right about where the music biz was 5 years ago. DVD
burners are around $300-400, the media is approaching $1 per disk and
connectivity speeds are increasing. We will see.
The economy is also right about where it was 5 years ago. People just
don't have the money they did in 1999 (I certainly don't). The
correlation is more than a coincidence.