I'm pretty sure this is a stupid question, and I hate acknowledging ignorance, but when I take a music file that's in whatever format and then add it to my iTunes library just for the purposes of playback, nothing changes in the actual encoding of the file, right?
While in between laptops for a while, I did most music purching on the work computer through the iTunes store. Granted, I was asking for trouble when I tried to use iPodRip or some such software to reconcile the library on my PC work computer with my newly purchased Mac laptop, but that's what I did, and the ensuing trials and errors used up all the licenses on the iTunes-purchased songs. So they're on one but not the other.
1: correct. If you import it as a different type, it will be re-encoded, but if you just add it it will be unchanged. For mp3's and the like, it might modify the genre tags etc. if you change them in itunes, but I'm not sure about that. Just importing should leave it untouched.
Right.
I hate acknowledging ignorance
You should call up your parents and berate them for this.
armsmasher: I don't buy DRM'd music so I'm not sure --- but I think I rember seeing DRM removal software around for the apple encodings.
Yes, one of them is called QTFairUse6 (2.4 is the latest version, I think) and I just grabbed it off bittorrent.
5: DVD Jon's QTFairUse and various variants depending on which version of iTunes you're using.
It's only somewhat their fault, and I had a fine weekend with them, so probably not the best time for a berating.
N.B. QTFairUse and variants require Windows.
A similar thing happened to me when I bought a new laptop. I *could* jump through a few hoops to make everything work, but since the whole point of buying online is convenience, I view this as a market failure.
Good thing you went the honest route and got treated like a criminal anyway, ogged.
Now now, ben, people who 'steal' their music don't get treated this way. You need to be a paying customer to enjoy the DRM experience.
I'm not really a fan of DRM, young-ish Ben; I was objecting to your contention that you "own" the "thing" and ought to be able to do with it as you please.
Related point: It can't actually be illegal to download a copy of a recording that you've already purchased a copy of, can it?
Sorry, Smasher, 2.5 is the latest version.
Just to clarify about iTunes:
1. If you add anything to your library, it's changed. It won't even be physically moved unless you let iTunes organize your collection, in which case it gets filed by artist and album annat.
2. Anything you convert to AAC with iTunes is just that, converted and not otherwise dinked with. It'll play in anything that plays AACs, like WinAmp.
3. It's just tracks from the iTunes store that have DRM on them. Burning them to CD and reimporting them gets rid of that. I have heard conflicting reports as to how much loss, if any, this inflicts, given that the CD audio itself is lossless. I confess that I haven't bothered tracking down a lot of specifics - I have enough hearing impairment and low-end enough gear that the differences are below my threshold of physical detection anyway. I am not an audiophile in that sense. :)
Anyway, that covers the cases.
Neil at 16: It truly is. The argument is that you're buying a license to use a particular copy of the artifact, as opposed to buying actual control over that copy, let alone a right of access to the information. The major players in the entertainment field want you to be renting, not buying.
18:
pretty sure you meant `unchanged' in 1. As noted, I'm not sure what itunes does to the metadata in originals if you change that, but in any case the music itself won't be touched.
as for 3: Yes, burning and re-importing will remove the DRM. However, this has to inflict loss of quality. Re-encoding with lossy encoding always reduces quality in measureable, if not percievable ways. The 128bit encoding of itunes tracks isn't great to begin with, so the losses are probably noticeable, but acceptable to a lot of people. This is just the nature of lossy compression.
It's almost as if the recording industry has not really come to terms with the digital age...
18: when did that argument start being deployed, and who actually believes it? I hope ogged recognizes, anyway, that it's a direct outgrowth of his wrongheaded beliefs.
As far as I know, 18 has always been the argument. When you buy a recording, sheet music, etc., you are a licensee of the copyright holder, who has the right to limit the license in any way he or she sees fit. This is basic IP law. Modern technology has just made it easier to break the law.
But haven't people always been able to make copies for backup and whatnot?
13 is 117% right. I steal all my music and I never have a problem moving it around. Personally, I feel like I'm doing my part to support a rational resolution to the transition to digital content delivery. So long as the RIAA and other media companies insist on trying to maintain the profitability of their distribution channels, I opt-out.
22: Modern technology has also rendered the rationale for much of IP inappropriate. What is the reasoning behind allowing quotation but not sampling?
The argument is that you're buying a license to use a particular copy of the artifact, as opposed to buying actual control over that copy, let alone a right of access to the information. The major players in the entertainment field want you to be renting, not buying.
I realize why this hasn't ever made sense to me before but now does. I assumed that you had the right to make a backup, but I guess they actually disagree. Now it makes more sense that music company executives say that iPods are repositories for stolen music. To them, you're stealing music when you copy a CD onto an iPod, just the same as if you download it off Kazaa.
To them, you're stealing music when you copy a CD onto an iPod
They've explicitly said this.
But haven't people always been able to make copies for backup and whatnot?
I was responding to this: It can't actually be illegal to download a copy of a recording that you've already purchased a copy of
There is a difference between making a back-up copy or shifting the location of your file and downloading a file from someone else. To begin with, whatever your license involves, it surely does not involve the right to make a copy of someone else's copy of a work, nor does their license grant them the right to give you copies of theirs.
There is a difference between making a back-up copy or shifting the location of your file and downloading a file from someone else.
What is that difference? Are you saying that even though the resulting files are (or can be) completely identical, one of them is legal and the other one isn't?
I'm not any kind of expert; but it seems to me not a question of whether the files are legal or illegal, but of the legality of the process by which you acquired the files. After all, if you walked into Border and shoplifted a CD, and ripped the songs to your IPod, you would be guilty of theft, even though the files on your IPod would be the exact same files as if you had yadda yadda yadda.
14: Wasn't that me? I realize Ben and I look alike and all, but still.
Yeah, I'd be guilty of theft because I would never have paid for the data in any format. But if I buy a CD, and instead of ripping it myself copy it from a friend, I've paid for the data when I bought the CD.
For what it's worth, Apple recommends that you make backup copies of your DRM'd songs. I think I have one or two machines left to add to my account, but I'm going to have to call up and see if I can get rid of one of them (a dead iPod).
Being locked out of music you paid for is even more annoying than being forced to watch the copyright warning at the start of a DVD you just bought.
I BOUGHT YOUR GODD***ED DISC, MOTHER F***ERS!!! YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL ME NOT TO STEAL IT!!!!
Ahh, that felt good.
In the the Third Millennium, bands make money on tour, selling their wares to the homeless children of Somalia, which is no longer an independent state, but rather a suburb of Detroit. It's all in the canon.
For stuff DRM'd using the Windows Media DRM, there's FairUse4WM.
But if I buy a CD, and instead of ripping it myself copy it from a friend, I've paid for the data when I bought the CD.
Try to universalize this: I bought a book. I decided that I wanted a copy of the book, and decided to have a friend photocopy his for me. That is copyright infringement. You have violated the copyrightholder's right to limit how and when the work is copied.
None of this takes away from the truth of 36, however.
Vista will make all this much much worse. For everyone.
Gee, when I saw the title "More Fucking DRM," I thought this was going to be a discussion on 21st century versions of the chastity belt.
I don't buy broken music at all, ever, and I never will, even if I end up having to hum everything I want to listen to.
Which might get me a little more room on the subway, come to think of it.
[Any version of Windows] will make all this much much worse. For everyone.
Historically, this statement has been valid for almost the entire set of possible values of "all this".
I don't understand artists who fight file sharing. They make all their real money through touring anyway. File sharing gives them the potential to grow their audience exponentially. The record companies obviously have a business interest in fighting file sharing, but the artists that come out in favor of things like DMCA are just misguided.
Try to universalize this: I bought a book. I decided that I wanted a copy of the book, and decided to have a friend photocopy his for me. That is copyright infringement. You have violated the copyrightholder's right to limit how and when the work is copied.
That's only true if the copyright holder has decided to limit how & when the work is copied in such a way that my friend's making a copy for me isn't allowed though my making a copy for me is. (It sounds a bit weird to me to say even then that I've violated the crh's rights, instead of that I've contravened a rule set down in accordance with those rights, or something like that.)
What if my friend made a copy for himself, and then later gave it to me? "How and when" the copy is made is legit.
They make all their real money through touring anyway.
If that were true, it would be very hard to explain studio acts.
I'm not sure how a show with two or three acts on the bill, for which tickets are, say, $10, really affords a band a chance to make all their real money anyhow.
If that were true, it would be very hard to explain studio acts.
Are you talking about studio musicians? They get paid upfront for their work, obviously, so they're not concerned about DMCA anyhow, since royalties aren't normally part of their compensation. Or are you talking about bands that record but don't tour? Because these are the exception. Recording artists make very little money on record/song sales, when compared with the money they make through playing live. It's how they all survive, and how the rich ones get truly rich. It's why guys like Billy Joel and Elton John and Bob Dylan and the Stones still tour, even though they've clearly sold millions of records, and continue to do so. I have a buddy who used to work at one of the big booking agencies here in New York, and he tells me the economy of recording artists is based almost entirely around promoting their tours (well, the real money is in licensing, but most sign away those rights at the beginning). CDs, radio airplay, MTV rotation -- these are all basically commercials for live acts. That's what's crazy about artists fighting the DMCA; they're fine with giving away free samples of their work on the radio and on MTV, because the economics of the music industry dictates that they need to promote their concerts. Why they don't see file-sharing as a similar promotional effort, that only helps fill clubs and arenas, is beyond me.
I'm not sure how a show with two or three acts on the bill, for which tickets are, say, $10, really affords a band a chance to make all their real money anyhow.
Well, no. I'm talking about the big acts that are fighting against file sharing, like Metallica. A band doing a gig with 2 other acts at a club with a $10 cover isn't making any money on anything. The internet is still this band's best friend, though; if the band can get a group of people excited about a track, and the track gets passed around, then pretty soon the band will be doing that $10 show by themselves, and soon after that it will be $20. File sharing totally levels the playing field. Music distribution was controlled previously by radio stations and music executives. In theory, anyone can get a fair hearing for their music now.
So the moral of the story is, help a struggling artist! Share files illegaly!
I meant studio-only acts, like (eg) XTC.
Presumably it's just as illegal to record a song off the radio as to download it from the Internet, no?
I meant studio-only acts, like (eg) XTC.
These are pretty rare, though.
These are pretty rare, though.
I'm not sure that's true.
Recording artists that don't tour? Really? If you were to express their number as a percentage of the whole, do you think it would even come to 5%? I doubt it would even be 1%.
I'm pretty sure Joe D is right and Ben is wrong.
58 -- kinda goes without saying does it not.
Here's one artist's take on the issue. Although it's several years old, and not precisely on topic, it certainly seems to indicate that touring is bigger source of income than album sales:
One other major point: in the hysteria of the moment, everyone is forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful - exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, no one buys CDs, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love. Again, from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show. I spend hours each week doing press, writing articles, making sure my website tour information is up to date. Why? Because all of that gives me exposure to an audience that might not come otherwise. So when someone writes and tells me they came to my show because they'd downloaded a song and gotten curious, I am thrilled!
Who gets hurt by free downloads? Save a handful of super-successes like Celine Dion, none of us. We only get helped.
FWIW, I know a couple of struggling independent musicians and they're split on whether they think music file sharing is a good thing or not. Some are clearly in favor, others oppose it.
The clearest statement I've heard by one of them opposing it is, "I suppose it would be fine with me if people decided that they didn't want to pay for CDs but I wish somebody would have told me that before I spent thousands of dollars recordning and producing a CD."
I realize that there's debate about whether file sharing hiurts CD sales or not, but I don't think anyone can claim that they obviously help CD sales,
That said, I don't know whether musicians that are trying to tour outside the local area would be more supportive of internet music distribution than ones that are local and not touring outside the range of word of mouth.
90% of my music purchases can be put down as a direct result of filesharing, no lie.
The clearest statement I've heard by one of them opposing it is, "I suppose it would be fine with me if people decided that they didn't want to pay for CDs but I wish somebody would have told me that before I spent thousands of dollars recordning and producing a CD."
Well, welcome to the world of struggling artists trying to break into the professional arena. That's how we all do it. Filmmakers, theater writers and directors, musicians -- we all spend a shitload of money to create something that showcases our value. Usually it's at a loss. It's great if someone will pay, but it shouldn't be expected when it's a self-produced venture.
When these subjects come up, I point people to Tsuanmi singer and Simple Machines record honcho Jenny Toomey's policy outlet, the Future of Music Coalition. I think Pete DiCola (whom I know vaguely) has done some actual research into the effects of music sharing, but I will ass-talkingly assert that:
* File sharing screws musicians
* But probably no worse than everything else
Really, the average band on a major label has a contract that probably pays them below minimum wage for their studio work. A band like XTC is obviously going to be an exception.
Okay, Joe, this is the first thing you've said that I think is silly. Just because spending a shitload of money to self-promote is the status quo, doesn't mean that people shouldn't expect to figure out a better way to do it if they can.
Sure, they should figure out something else if they can. But they shouldn't expect to automatically make a profit with self-produced ventures, just because they think the end result is worth paying for. I never said the system was good, or made sense. It is what it is. But if you're an artist expecting to get attention by working outside the established system (whatever that system may be), you're banking on a serious longshot at best.
62 -- How much money do you spend on music purchases? I don't have a good sense. But, oviously, if file sharing gets someone who would have spent $50/yr to spend $100/yr and lets someone else who would have spent $400/yr spend $300/yr than it's a net loss. I honestly don't know the numbers, except to say that CD sales have been down the last couple years.
63 -- What B said, the fact that this is common doesn't mean that everyone is happy with it nor does it give you the right to pre-empt other people from having an opinion (that sounds more harsh than I intended). You may be correct, along with the Janis Ian quote above, that the gains in exposure are good for small scale artists. I'm just saying that I don't think it's beyond debate.
Let me give another example. I know of musicians who are established, have steady work either teaching or touring/playing festivals who don't prodice many recordnings because it isn't worth their time. Let's imagine that I like their recordings and would like to see them record more. What commercial environment would be best suited to encouraging those musicians to make more recordings? Take, for example, the Wayne Henderson recording that I've plugged before. That almost never existed as a recording. I'm not saying that digital file sharing was what made Wayne not want to release the recording, but not everyone is fighting to gain more exposure.
Really, the average band on a major label has a contract that probably pays them below minimum wage for their studio work. A band like XTC is obviously going to be an exception.
Dude, they don't even get paid for it, outside royalties. The studio lends them the money to record the album. They have to pay the studio back if the record sells.
Sure, they should figure out something else if they can. But they shouldn't expect to automatically make a profit with self-produced ventures, just because they think the end result is worth paying for
Absolutely. I can't argue with that.
I wouild note, hoever, that there's a difference between "expect to make a profit" and "expect people that consume it to pay for it." Again, I know people on both sides of this debate, but I don't think there's anything unreasonable about a musician who wants to say, "having prodiced this CD," I only want people who pay for the CD to own a copy. It may be self-defeating in the long rin, but not inherently unreasonable.
It's not unreasonable, just unrealistic. Free content is the norm now. It's getting easier to find everything for free, not more difficult. The change is happening whether people want it to or not. I can understand the individual artists feeling like they should get paid for the hard work they do in the studio, but it's probably not going to happen, and it really wouldn't be that much if it did. If I were a recording artist, I would try to distribute as much free content as humanly possible, since it would only increase sales of the one thing that might make me some serious money: tickets to my shows.
Looking forward to the freely distributed White Noise DVD's.
There are clips on youtube right now.
I don't think there's anything unreasonable about a musician who wants to say, "having prodiced this CD," I only want people who pay for the CD to own a copy.
Would the musician be OK with people buying used copies of the CD? How about people buying a pirated copy off the street? Surely paying for the CD isn't what's really important.
68 - Sure, sure, but even in the Albini-dollars scenario (it's not always the case that you have to drop fifty grand to get pried loose from your old contract, etc.; on the other hand, Albini is positing a reasonably successful midlist album, which is also not usually the case) the band does at least get paid out of that $14K hole. A fella could have a pretty good weekend with all that stuff.
A fella could have a pretty good weekend with all that stuff.
In Vegas.
You'd need three lipsticks and three pairs nylon stockings.
Free content is the norm now.
This worries me. It just feels like an unstable situation.
Let me put it this way. If the purpose of making recordings is to sell tickets to concerts, why bother making high fidelity recordings, why not save money/energy and make decent quality recordings?
If file sharing replaces radio as a way for consumers to get free samples of new music that seems like a huge advantage for both musicians and consumers. If free content replaces CDs that would bother me.
Similarly, (to use a banned analogy), blogs replacing op-ed articles seems like a huge improvement, but if blogs cut down on the production of books by diverting people's energy into shorter projects that would be a bad thing.
Now, neither CDs or books are going away any time soon, but I want to be wary about criticizing either as an outmoded format.
There are clips on youtube right now.
One of the next big IP battles will relate to services like YouTube and the massive amount of copyright infringing material to be found there.
More interesting than the question of free music is the question of free movies. Musicians can perhaps continue to make their money on live shows and bling. What do movie actors, directors, etc. do once free movie sharing becomes ubiquitous?
The same thing they did when the VCR was invented and video rental stores began to spread. Fuss about it for a while, and then move on.
Try to universalize this: I bought a book. I decided that I wanted a copy of the book, and decided to have a friend photocopy his for me. That is copyright infringement. You have violated the copyrightholder's right to limit how and when the work is copied.
Let's not universalize it, since music has traditionally been treated differently than books when it comes to fair use. But are you willing to argue that in your hypothetical, it would be perfectly legal for me to make my own copy of the book? If so, what possible damages can the copyright holder show they've suffered by the simple fact that I had someone else do the copying?
In those cases, they ended up with fat stacks of cash.
Books and CDs are not particularly similar, and thus comparing them counts as an analogy. You're all banned.
not particularly similar
What!? both are roughly the same size (or in the same range of sizes) and shape (if the cd is in its case), similarly rigid (for a hardcover book at any rate); both usually have titles printed on them; I could go on and on -- the similarities are endless!
One of the next big IP battles will relate to services like YouTube and the massive amount of copyright infringing material to be found there.
Those battles won't be fought by me. And eventually our entire understanding of IP protection is going to change dramatically, I have no doubt.
Let me put it this way. If the purpose of making recordings is to sell tickets to concerts, why bother making high fidelity recordings, why not save money/energy and make decent quality recordings?
This doesn't follow. People will download and pass around a track based on the track itself. It still needs to be up to the production standards that we're all used to, at a bare minimum. But look, guys, all the music production software is getting cheaper by the second. As is filmmaking software. It's far cheaper to self-produce a CD or a film today than it was even 5 years ago. The recorded content needs to be as good as possible; otherwise, people aren't going to be interested in downloading it or talking about it to their friends. But thanks to less expensive technology, it's possible for artists to do this without breaking the bank -- provided they have the talent.
What do movie actors, directors, etc. do once free movie sharing becomes ubiquitous?
Stop being millionaires? Aw.
What about this for a model: Sony, say, being a purveyor of both consumer audio electronics and audio content, develops the next new hi-fidelity format with wads of bits packed onto the medium for supah, supah high fidelity audio and inconvenient (for now) amounts of data to push through the intertubes. They take some of that money they use to promote artists and use it to promote their new format instead. I, affluent music nerd, rush out and buy new format medium recording of my favorite unknown too-cool-for-you band, rip that shit on my too-expensive-for-you computer, and throw it up on the Gloriously Reborn Free Napster. Why? Because I have an ego, and the GRFN is a reputation economy, and I feel as if my dick grows bigger when everybody knows I got the new hotness for them on the GRFN.
Sony makes money on sales of new medium and new electronics, band makes money on concerts promoted with circulating lower-res copies of content, and lawyers make no money suing college students. I buy my way to the perception of higher social status, which would have happened one way or another anyway.
Whattya think?
(Alternate plan: I save my music money, buy a congressman, and force everyone by law to unplug their freezers and start taking ice deliveries)
supah, supah high fidelity audio and inconvenient (for now) amounts of data to push through the intertubes
And they could call it SACD! Oh, wait...
I've known a few recording musicians, and while their incomes aren't as massive as you'd expect given the volumes of their record sales, it's my impression that Albini is over-egging the case a bit. All of them were making rather than losing money from sales of recordings.
Mostly achieved through not being total cocks and spending 300,000 dollars on recording costs or blowing 500,000 on a 3 minute video, and, taking small advances in return for a much higher % of the gross revenue (as in 50% of the gross revenue, rather than the 15 listed by Albini).
That does rely on the musicians involved not actually being dumb, though.
Also, contra some of the comments above, at least one of the bands I know were, at least four or five years back (which is as recent as my knowledge gets), really not making money on tour. Touring barely broke even, if at all. Money was in recordings for them.
So, I don't know all that much about this, but here's a reason file-sharing might harm artists: it makes the record company less likely to, and less able to, fund the recording of new acts given that there's less of a chance of making money.
It's not, in my experience at least, that people just download the recordings of small bands and artists who need the exposure. It tends to be a few small groups and a lot of Britney Spears and other big acts. And if I understand the money right, the record company loses money on most artists, and makes its money just on the big acts.
So I could see being a small act trying to get started who wanted exposure by having people download music, but who wanted the record companies to crack down on piracy, as distinct from free music, so there'd still be a chance at getting a contract.
Overall, though, I get the sense the record companies are like scribes protesting the arrival of the printing press.
Getting back to the anti-DRM thing, I just tried emusic.com and like it a lot--the combination of DRM-free mp3s and the ability to download stuff I've paid for over and over from any computer is lovely.
On the general subject of why intellectual property is evil, I heartily recommend this (freely available) manuscript by two economists: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm