there are many ways to get around them, they are just using scare tactics.......
http://brendastardom.com/arch.asp?ArchID=210
http://brendastardom.com/arch.asp?ArchID=210
RIAA is after Kazaa users big time now
- Thread starter aphexcoil
- Start date
Quote from canyonman00:
After about three minutes she remarked, "I must be catching a cold." Somehow she must have just forgot that the studio tweaking of her performances IS critical to her abilities."
I totally agree. It seems like the popular culture has driven sales of Britney Spears, N'sync, etc. Even a lot of the alternative bands just sound like a rehash of something already done -- it doesn't seem like any bands are creating an entirely unique brand of music.
Even more sad, if they are unique, they're not being pushed by the RIAA. It seems like the music industry just pushes music towards the least common denominator of our society and it is no longer the joy of actually "playing" a piece but just creating more sales.
If you think about it, music at its heart is a very artistic expression and the music "industry" is really just a business. So what we have is big business pushing what sells, instead of what sounds great and is original.
Sometimes I wish I had grown up in the 60's. There really aren't many groups today that I'm dieing to see a new album from. There was some interesting development in the early 90's with alternative groups such as Green Day, Smash Mouth, etc ... However there really aren't any stellar original rock groups today. In fact, a lot of 60's and 70's is makine a come back because when you listen to a song like "Hotel California," you can relate to the song and what the musician is playing. It is pure, fresh and very original. Nothing to compare with "Baby hit me one more time" by Britney Spears.
Britney Spears is a performer, not a musician. She can't even act!
If you think about it, this business model applies to many different arenas nowadays. Sports, for example, are all about promoting the recent draft pick, signing them to major multi-million dollar contracts, printing up a bunch of jerseys and other paraphenellia and then trying to book profits as much on the hype as on the product. I think the "boys band" thing of the late 80's became a whole industry unto itself and was then just a natural extension to go out and find young, good looking chicks who are marketable first as sex symbols and peripherally as musicians. You can understand why so many of the old rock n' rollers are so cynical about it all...It's really no different in the movie business either. The majority of major blockbuster films, the ones that actually make the most money, are so formulaic, the same old stars that sell the most tickets...Promote the hell out of the films, open them up in the middle of the summer and book your profits...If you really think about it, the biggest advances over the past 25 years have been made in target marketing...Focussing on building a product from the ground up for one specific audience and then exploiting the hell out of it...Brittney Spears is the poster child for this kind of marketing...Short on talent, long on looks, just more "bubblegum pop" that outsells all the real artists...
I went to a Comedy Club last night and the group I was with included 6 lawyers. There was a discussion about DMCA and how ridiculous it is and how it will help enrich lawyers too (usually poor laws=wealthy lawyers.)
One of them mentioned that an interpertation of DMCA would make it illegal and subject to fines to sing copyright songs in church as is now widely practiced. I did not understand the legal theory but they did.
DS
If what you are saying is that most of what is pushed by big music is crap, I agree, but if it makes them money that's OK by me. What is bad IMO, is that it is very difficult to find new and original music if file sharing is stopped by RIAA without a reasonable alternate.
Current radio is so bad I stopped listening to it except for news, talk shows and sports. It is so bad, that when I was listening to it, I could tell the time by when certain songs were played.
DS
Doug -
Per DMCA Section 1201, technological protective measures are described and separated into those that prevent unauthorized ACCESS to copyrighted material and those that prevent unauthorized USE of copyrighted material. The DMCA only prohibits circumventing the first category which would allow unauthorized access to copyrighted material. It doesn't prohibit circumvention of anti-copy technology.
It's specifically distinct to allow fair use of copyrighted material. Copying copyrighted material can fall under fair use provisions (e.g., if you copy for your personal non-commercial use or to make a backup) and is not prohibited by the DMCA.
What is prohibited is circumventing a copyright access technology (e.g., a DVD with time limited access for rentals that you circumvent to continue to access beyond the expiration of the allotted time period).
What I find amazing is that so many people (BTW, these next comments are not directed at you - just in general) continue to justify theft of someone else's intellectual property with lame rationalizations like "the labels don't pay the artists enough" or "they all make way too much money" or "their business model is antiquated" or "most CDs only have one or two good tracks".
This is like scanning and pirating all the best selling books and justifying it because books are out moded, they don't pay authors enough royalties, and the book industry should have gone to electronic delivery years ago because it's what I want.
Theft is theft - if you don't like the way an industry does business, don't buy their products. But stealing their products isn't justified regardless what half-assed rationalization the theif uses.
If someone thinks they've got a better business model - they're free to open their own darn label and see if they can make a go of it.
Arch-As I understand it, if a CD has a copy proctection scheme and you circumvent it, it is illegal under DMCA even if your use of the copies made by circumventing would be considered "fair use."
HR107 takes up and will attemp to correct this. In summary , HR107 says:
b) FAIR USE RESTORATION- Section 1201(c) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the end the following: `and it is not a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with access to, or the use of, a work if such circumvention does not result in an infringement of the copyright in the work'
"
DS
The amendment to 1201 you mention is clarification.
The DMCA already does NOT prohibit circumvention of copy protection technology for what would be considered fair use. It does prohibit circumvention access protection technology since there are no scenarios under which that would be fair use.
The reason they're considering the amendment is to explicitly state what is already allowed under the DMCA because it's not prohibited by the DMCA. Unfortunately, by including the words "access to" they could end up confusing things further by making the prohibitions regarding access technology circumvention less clear. They should only say "use of" not "access to, or use of," in the amended text.
The DMCA already does NOT prohibit circumvention of copy protection technology for what would be considered fair use. It does prohibit circumvention access protection technology since there are no scenarios under which that would be fair use.
The reason they're considering the amendment is to explicitly state what is already allowed under the DMCA because it's not prohibited by the DMCA. Unfortunately, by including the words "access to" they could end up confusing things further by making the prohibitions regarding access technology circumvention less clear. They should only say "use of" not "access to, or use of," in the amended text.
The arguments here seem to break down into "stealing is wrong" and "the studios are rip-off's". Both are no doubt correct. Copying is deemed stealing only because of the way the copyright laws are written, and you better believe they are written by industry lobbyists. Why else would a mild mannered Republican like Senator Hatch burst out with the idiotic comment at a committee hearing that he'd like to authorize the studios to hack into and destroy downloaders' pc's. Why are conservative Republicans carrying water for the music and movie industries, which are not exactly known for supporting Republican candidates? Is it some "obey the law" obsession or have they just been paid for?
Whatever law comes out and whatever the industry does, consumers have the ultimate power. Believe it or not, cd's are not essential to life. They can't force you to buy them. They can't force you to go to concerts of groups that are not download friendly, not any more than they can force you to go to a Dixie Chicks concert. If there is a market for downloads, and it's pretty clear there is, then enterprising groups will be able to bypass the studios and go directly to consumers. Some have already done it, with varying success.
Whatever law comes out and whatever the industry does, consumers have the ultimate power. Believe it or not, cd's are not essential to life. They can't force you to buy them. They can't force you to go to concerts of groups that are not download friendly, not any more than they can force you to go to a Dixie Chicks concert. If there is a market for downloads, and it's pretty clear there is, then enterprising groups will be able to bypass the studios and go directly to consumers. Some have already done it, with varying success.