MP3 Pirating issue solved?

[NFU]

after much thought ive come to the following conclusion.


MP3s are essential and necessary for one like myself to get into new bands or music in general, without wasting a ton of money on shots in the dark or most peoples retarded reviews (i.e. the new norther is great! or dimmu borgir is a good band)...anyway...i think an encrypted software component should be invented and put into mp3s so that they only last a certain period of time. Much like trial basis programs you can download and see how they work (paint shop pro, mcafee, photoshop, etc). This way, someone can download the material, see if they like it...but wont be able to keep it forever in that state. Forcing them to buy the album. "but what if they burn it before it expires?" you say? Well, they would also have an anti-burning component also attached, making them only useful for playing/listening...no other use. "But what if you want MP3s from your already purchased CDs?" you say? Well, an alternative file format could be invented for just mp3s of this type, or perhaps a BETTER file type could be made for permanent styled music files.

Lots of litany involved, but really...everyone wins in a way. I know you MP3 pirating nazis might be bummed you have to buy the music of bands you like instead of that extra 12 pack of beer...but hopefully you all have a few brain cells left to make a logical decision like that.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

hmm, interesting concept...when i'm on campus p2p programs don't seem to work for me, so i have to get by on mp3s bands have on their official sites. bands should do that more, at least a couple full songs.

 

[R0l0]

I believe a similar type of system is already in use with .WMA files over pay-to-download networks like the current Napster or iTunes.
But what's going to keep people from sticking to plain mp3 files over P2P networks? Either way, people are eventually going to find a way to crack the encryption in order to keep the files permanently. This is like saying the software trials are preventing piracy of the software.

 

[Birkenau]

Why would someone want to download these rigged MP3's when they can already download a proper thing with no limits?

 

[Erich w/ an h]

well, first off, like ROIO said, .wma files can have an "expire in 90 days" and "anti-burn" or "burn only x times" component in them. But regardless, there will always be a way around it. always.

Take the cd copy protection that cost millions to manufacture, and it was circumvented with a sharpie marker. Or the other cd copy protection costing millions that was circumvented by holding down the shift key.

in the end, even if there was a way to prevent just about every single way of copying the track... theres always feeding the audio directly into a recording program. simple as that.

 

[NFU]

hmm. i guess theres people a lot nerdier than me. oh well...back to the drawing board.

 

[AnTz0r]

hehe. there is NO copy protection that beats a good-old analog copy. theres only the legal way. sue sue sue!

the dutch record industry corporation logged the ip's of hundreds of people who hosted an insanely amount of mp3's. Then, they proceeded by sending all the isp's of these people the request to forward their customers a warrant.

Basically, 5 of the 7 ISP's agreed and forwarded the warrant to the customer. It gave them the option to pay about $3000 and sigining a contract never to USE illegal MP3's again (download mp3 is legal here). About 7 agreed.

BREIN, the industry corporation, is now going to sue all the ISP's to give them the names and adresses of their customers. I cant imagine them sueing a 100 people, but im really curious as to whats gonna happen.

All this took place about 1 month ago.

So, now leeching is the best way to go

 

[Jon Snow]

hmm. i guess theres people a lot nerdier than me. oh well...back to the drawing board.

A valiant effort though.

 

[KennonKun]

It sounds like it would work, only whoever implements this would have trouble eradicating all the regular mp3s that exist. I do understand that that's not necessarily the point; the circulation of these new mp3s will hopefully save artists who've been robbed from losing anymore money, and new artists from losing any at all. Plus, maybe the idea of actually buying albums in stores will resurface...

 

[Arnold Layne]

My problem with time release albums is that it should then be the stores and companies responsibilty to make the album available to me. I was Lightbulbun and Stupid dream but they are unavailable and therefore i ahve the mp3's, also my musical tastes count for about 1000 people of the whole population of the country, and there isnt the market for it so most of the stuff i listen to comes via mp3, which if i like enough i buy the album (again if i can get it)

 

[Aaron A.]

I agree with you, Alternative 3. I intend on buying a lot of music once I get some money. Poor rationalization? Yeah, I know.

 

[Kenneth R.]

they have successfully stopped coying of certain cds with that random "skip" script encoded into the songs, which pisses me off because i was trying to copy for backup purposes (this is supposed to be a consumer's right).

as for trial version kind of stuff, i know people have gotten around that with other programs it shouldn't be hard to break. the best thing they can do is try to change people's minds about trying to get music illegally, and own up to their own faults and schemes. if they come clean, people might as well. though this is far-fetched.

 

[BrandonS]

This whole MP3 pirating situation is because of greed.

- If CDs didn't cost so much, people would buy more of them. The music "industry" sueing people who download music is like Krogers beating old ladies with a bat when they try to sample a grape to make sure they aren't sour or something.

- Downloading MP3s is the only just way for balance in the corrupt music industry, and if you intend on buying the CDs you download it's not pirating (as long as you delete the unworthy stuff within 24 hours, or after you listen to it)

Actually the music industry is probably even too pigheaded (no offense, me) to allow to sampling of music by downloading and deleting within 24 hours. They really piss me off. OH OH OUR BAND LINKIN PORK (again, no offense me) OR LIMPING BISCUIT OR GENERIC-RAP-BAND #78 NEEDS MORE MONEY!11 WHO CARES IF ITS WORTH LISTENING TO OR NOT? PEOPLE MUST PAY $15 FOR IT OUT OF THEIR HARD-EARNED CASH!

All I can say in conclusion is Thank God for heavy metal, which is both worth listening to and worth paying for (especially from Century Media - daaaayamn $10 price tags, hehe)

 

[Mr Samsara]

1. There is no simple "Cure All" solution
2. The root of the "problem" is money
3. The answer lies in ones personal ethical fortitude

The problem lies not in technology, but in the character of the people using it. I have had this debate many times over the many years that mp3's have been available and in reality the debate has been going for longer than that..(think VCR's and Cassette Tapes)..

Since the inception of commerce, "Art" can and is considered a commodity. Those who invest in said commodity want to protect their investment. Salt this with a bit of greed and demands suddenly become ruthless and unreasonable. On the flip side, those who wish to rationalize the acquisition of materials that have been produced as a commodity simply because they don't have any money or that the producer or distributor of the material "Makes a shit load of money anyway" are equally deficient in the moral/ethical arena. (When I say commodity - think CD on the shelves, rather than music produced in your dorm room/garage and posted on your personal site for the free mass consumption by the general public for "Art's" sake)

The solution again lies with greed or the lack thereof..

I'm the biggest proponent of capitolism on the planet, but corporations looking for ways to squeeze every last drop of profit from it's clientelle (Greed vrs. smart business practices) can fuck up a good thing in a hurry.

I'm also big on freedom, liberty and autonomy.. but stealing is stealing regardless of the rationale and doing so can also fuck up a good thing in a hurry.

SO.. perhaps my biggest ethic deals with personal responsibility. If you are as a corporation are going to try to fuck your clients, they will have a great reason to feel good about fucking you. If you rationalize bad behavior by saying, "well, he did it first" or "He's doing the same thing to me"... are you taking responsibility for your actions? I say no and you're making the problem worse. Whether you are a big corporation or a kid in front of your computer in the basement, stop pointing the finger at others and start looking at yourself. Problem solved.

Out.

 

[BrandonS]

Well I don't consider myself a thief. I download stuff that I am pretty sure I will like, and stuff I don't like I just get rid of... and if I do like the stuff I download, I will purchase the CD. So I'm not the weakest link, but I know a LOT of people who download just to download and keep without paying.

I am on a 56k connection so its easier for me not to go on a mad-theft spree, but then people with cable and like t1 connections and share sizes of 400gigs are probably a problem... but still, one person can't make a profit for a company. It probably takes thousands of these kind of people to actually cause a bend in the profits.

But it doesn't matter that I download music cause I dont download mainstream bullcrap, just metal.. and most metal bands approve of internet song sharing because it gets their material spread and they don't make much money anyway.

 

[Mr Samsara]

I'm right. Aren't I? :Smug:


Out.

 

[the_3_toed_sloth]

I'm right. Aren't I? :Smug:


Out.

I think that if we wait for everyone to start acting ethically we shall be waiting till the end of the earth.

I think music companies need to swallow the bitter pill and realise that since hackers and their ilk will always be a step ahead, better anti-piracy blocks will only piss off legitimate customers while not achieving their aims.

I think a change of approach to music distribution might be needed, someway that reflects the need for the music industry to turn a profit, yet does not require the average joe to buy twelve hundred albums before they find anything worthwhile.

I think in a day and age where such vast swathes of people are online, this could be done with large online hubs where for a set fee a user may download as much music as they choose. But, those files will cease to work after a set period/number of listens, and, if tied to a unique user id (ie. encrypted against use on foreign computers), can not be traded. This way people can hear as much as they like, companies can cash in on the mp3 craze, there is still an incentive to buy the actual cd, and there is little point in trading mp3s online instead.

Thoughts?

 

[R0l0]

I think in a day and age where such vast swathes of people are online, this could be done with large online hubs where for a set fee a user may download as much music as they choose. But, those files will cease to work after a set period/number of listens, and, if tied to a unique user id (ie. encrypted against use on foreign computers), can not be traded. This way people can hear as much as they like, companies can cash in on the mp3 craze, there is still an incentive to buy the actual cd, and there is little point in trading mp3s online instead.

Thoughts?

Heh I'm pretty sure that's how the new Napster works right now-- you pay $15 a month to download as much as you want, but it will only let you play the tracks on your own machine and I think they expire eventually. The only problem is that there is a limited selection of music (only RIAA certified stuff). It would probably be difficult to create a such a service that unifies all the other record companies, because how would you divide the money? Plus there's always going to be some small independant labels who aren't going to be part of the service.
Still, you don't hear about many people using the Napster service because as stated before, it's much easier to leech off of a P2P network at this point in time.

 

[Mr Samsara]

I think that if we wait for everyone to start acting ethically we shall be waiting till the end of the earth.

Thoughts?

I believe you are correct. As an idealist... it is the solution. Your ideas do show promise... however, as R0l0 pointed out there are some hurdles yet to be overcome. I actually use an FTP where many upload different bands/styles of music and freely exchange both the music and detailed information regarding the bands. It is actually how I discovered the mighty Opeth. Back in the early days of Napster, I discovered some other cool bands that led me to purchase their entire catalog, MANY concert tix and bits of other merch (Shirts, etc.)..... Damn, again just using the existing format to experience new and different music could work if used ethically... but that will happen around the time we actually have world peace.. So I'm not really holding my breath. It's fun to talk about though...


Out.

 

[deliverance]

hah, it's kinda funny how some cd stores sell em for 17-18 bucks a pop, and others 10-11 bucks. clearly, these high prices that most people won't pay, and hence will dowload instead, give back to the manufacturers a lot of money in which THEY use to copy-protect cds. i dunno the stats, but people above said MILLIONS of dollars to do this, yet it can be overridden so easily. i'm seeing a big fucking circle here, and a lot of money being wasted. if all cds were 8-10 bucks, more people would buy em, but either way, i'd personally still want to sample some tracks first.