Open Letter to the RIAA & MPAA, the Anti-DRM Contingent, Apple and Everyone Else

It's a little known fact that you can actually "see" reality distortion emanating from Jobs if he stands against a dark background.

I tried to represent this through squiggles.

3 votes

#1.1 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:15 PM EDT

Ugly Bastard

I think we should be allowed to steal music, TV shows, and movies. I think we should be allowed to cheat on our taxes. I think we should be allowed to pilfer grapes at the grocery store.

So what if it hurts some else? Long as I get mine?

(Brian, you going to censor this post too?)

3 votes

#2 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:38 PM EDT

Nah, I think everyone should be allowed to see the stupidity on display, this time.

However -- I'll be happy to exercise my right to do so if you take it any further.

13 votes

#2.1 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:43 PM EDT

Ugly Bastard, did you even read this article? He is not saying that we should be allowed to steal anything. He is merely saying that the current methods are not consumer friendly and the trend is towards the negative. Instead of obsessing over the possibility of piracy, the RIAA and MPAA should instead be focusing on the most efficient and effective way to deliver content to those who do want to pay for it.

9 votes

#2.2 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:50 PM EDT

So what if it hurts some else? Long as I get mine?

There's the world view that is erroding American freedom, right there. The only environment in which autonomy actually works is where it's self-controlled. "As long as I get mine" demands government intervention and therefore an actual loss of freedom.

4 votes

#2.3 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:32 PM EDT

Corey Spring

Mission accomplished, Brian.

2 votes

#2.4 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:19 PM EDT

Ross Graham

Ugly Bastard you are already allowed to do any of the things you have mentioned ... just be ready for the current consequences of the choices you make. I'm sure you'll end up getting yours.

3 votes

#2.5 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:38 PM EDT

Great point, Ross.

2 votes

#2.6 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:41 PM EDT

Brian White

Ugly Bastard, how do you steal TV shows? You can record them from over the air to your VCR or computer or Tivo or standalone dvd recorder already right? That's the one that I really don't get content people being upset about. How can you suffer monetary damage when you give your product away for free and time shifting is already established as completely legal?

2 votes

#2.7 - Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:01 AM EDT

Brian, great post! I completely agree that the media industry needs to focus more on how to deliver content better to paying costumers than on piracy. Many pirate not only because it is free, but because it is easy, it is near instantaneous and you never need to leave your computer.

I also feel that with the RIAA continuing their anti-consumer ways and with the rise of many great independent artists, that the major record labels may not be major for much longer unless they undergo a drastic change. Some may think that this is not possible, that these companies are far too big and powerful to just suddenly collapse, but in an age where AT&T is bought by a former baby-Bell, and GM considers bankruptcy, anything can happen to an outdated corporation that refuses to adapt to the new world.

Regrettably the major film studios are far safer in their power. There has been a rise in independent movies lately, especially with the reduction in costs that digital video offers, but this rise pales in comparison to the rise in independent music. Also the independent film studios or truly independent film makers still need to play nice with the current studio system if they have any hope of any kind of distribution. Luckily, there has been a bit more adaptation from the movie studios as services such as Netflix are good starting points on alternate content deliver systems to give the customer what they want as fast and easy as possible. However, as is pointed out in this article, the next step needs to be high-quality, if not high-def video transfers. Recording onto DVD would be nice, but for me personally, I have a RAID-server I made just to store all the ripped files from the DVD so that I can access them with a click of a mouse, much like an iTunes setup but for video, rather than an mp3 collection (however this is technically illegal for DVDs, but not for creating MP3's out of CDs, thank you DMCA. Who wants to mess with actually disks anymore? People not as geeky as me, I guess.

4 votes

#3 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:17 PM EDT

Adam -

Thanks for your reply. (As well as your response to UB above.)

I think the ability to burn to a DVD is going to remain important for the time being. It provides portability and a media that most people have access to.

For my part, I'd love to have a server with all of my media on it that can play on a TV. (I'm waiting with bated breath for Apple to introduce something innovative and have written about that in other articles here on Newsvine.) Still, those files "must" be high quality for my widescreen LCD TV and they must have good audio. Otherwise, I will not be interested. Again, I notice little difference between a AAC at 128 and a CD. (My audio equipment -and most people's for that matter- doesn't detect the difference.) However, it's a different story. I would miss surround sound. I would notice the artifacts on a badly encoded movie. I want -at least- what I get out of buying a DVD or else I will continue to just buy DVDs. Because I will be sacrificing extras and because they won't be spending money on packaging, etc... I want it to be cheaper.

3 votes

#3.1 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:27 PM EDT

I want -at least- what I get out of buying a DVD or else I will continue to just buy DVDs. Because I will be sacrificing extras and because they won't be spending money on packaging, etc... I want it to be cheaper.

First, it will not be cheaper due to threats of DVD sellers who will fear losing business to cheaper downloadable movies. This I can kind of understand, though I hope we will not have to deal with it for long.

Quality-wise, I wish I could find a link to this article announcing a new codec that puts the H.264 codec to shame. The compression to quality rates were amazing.

Audio-wise, AAC at 128 is near CD quality, and I got that from a music professor of mine who hates audio compression, but was rather impressed with the AAC. Also AAC can hold up to 48 tracks of audio, so it can support 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 surround sound systems, perhaps it is just the Apple version that is stereo only, or perhaps they just have not utilized the full functionality of AAC at this time. In fact DVD files, MPEG-2, actually use AAC audio, which is MPEG-2 layer 7 (what DVD's use) or MPEG-4 layer 3, which is what Apple uses.

4 votes

#3.2 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:45 PM EDT

Elliot Vos

I think Brian has a very valid set of reasons for why downloadable movies should be cheaper. They're the same reasons why downloadable music albums are cheaper. DVDs will still sell for the same reason that music CDs still sell. The two are quite analogous, really.

2 votes

#3.3 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:27 PM EDT

Brian, great article/letter, but it left me wanting. Perhaps that was your intention?

I know you're a level-headed individual, and full of all kinds of common sense, so none of what you've said surprises me. What I'm missing is actual ideas for solutions. I know you'd like to leave that up to the people in charge, but I think that's just the problem: They're just as confused as everyone else. These companies (Apple included) are all scratching their heads wondering what to do. So do you have practical solutions?

Now, I agree that the first step is to get everyone on the same ("reasonable") page. (What you've written is a call to just that, I understand.) Still, sometimes in order to get unity, a common goal must first be presented. Remember America during the weeks that immediately followed 9/11? In danger of being crass, I think the entertainment industry needs a 9/11 -- or, in simpler (gentler?) terms, they need a wakeup call.

I believe the wakeup call could come in the form of an "insanely great" idea. I also believe that idea could come from common folk (poke, poke). So ... what do you propose? :)

3 votes

#4 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:42 PM EDT

Hrm...

I guess I just don't see the need for an insanely great solution.

I suppose the greater point I wanted to make is that two sides are so intent upon "all or nothing" solutions that neither is willing to admit that the obvious solution would also work fine.

Give us high-quality without DRM. It won't affect piracy as piracy seems to be doing just fine "with" DRM in their way. It will make customers happy.

They will argue that DRM has cut down on Piracy. I argue that the iTMS (and others like it) has cut down on piracy.

I think unencumbered music would cut down on Piracy even more.

Some of my solutions in the article were:

Stop supporting piracy even if you don't support the RIAA
Drop DRM entirely
Provide the quality that we already get via DVD

I think they'll find that if they work "with" their customers -- their customers will work with them. They'll still deal with piracy, but they'll be more likely to have our sympathy if we're not getting @!$%#ed (DRM) so that they can deal with it in ways that clearly aren't stopping it anyway.

The solution to this won't be advanced technology -- it will be accepting that digital is the foreseeable future and not trying to hold back the inevitable.

Both sides need to pull their head out of the ground.

The rest of us need to express very clearly what it is we want from our digital media while making it clear that we will respect the rights of the content creators. Burning "a" disc for your friends is one thing: distributing 1000 via a P2P network is another. (The RIAA and the MPAA need to accept this too.)

2 votes

#4.1 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:48 PM EDT

I think they'll find that if they work "with" their customers -- their customers will work with them.

I'll be the first to subscribe to your methodology, Brian. I'm a posterchild for the iTunes, open and fair way -- I've spent over a thousand dollars at the iTunes Music Store over the last 3 years ...

But we're both decent individuals. What of those like Ugly Bastard who, in their own words, don't care about the consequences of piracy? They have a "stick it to the man" approach. Do you think that just because companies open up their policies that will change?

3 votes

#4.2 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:12 PM EDT

No, I don't.

I guess my argument is that those people will -always- exist and that attempting to thwart them only makes them want to hurt you more. And it also requires that you hurt a loyal and paying customer base.

The greater good would be to accept a certain amount of shrink and to appease those who (mostly) follow the rules.

2 votes

#4.3 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:44 PM EDT

Tim Baxter

Sean, I think
(a) most people are generally decent (I know, it's debatable, but I think it's true)
(b) most people don't have a problem with paying a nominal fee to support the artists they enjoy
(c) Convenience, fast downloads and being above board can trump free
(d) Peer sharing works by having a lot of people. If most people are willing to download through "official" channels, the unofficial channels have less value.

1 vote

#4.4 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:49 PM EDT

... And it also requires that you hurt a loyal and paying customer base.

Boy, do I understand this first hand.

The greater good would be to accept a certain amount of shrink and to appease those who (mostly) follow the rules.

The "greater good" or "lesser of evils"? :)

I understand you fully, and completely agree with you. I just don't think the solution will come [easily] from all the parties involved just being "reasonable." I think what Tim says (below) about critical mass of the artists themselves taking control is probably more likely a catalyst for change.

1 vote

#4.5 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:56 PM EDT

Tim Baxter

I've been able to view (as a bystander) the front lines of this through the musician website I run. Interestingly, among the people most affected (the musicians) opinions vary WILDLY on what could, or should, be done.

What's clear to me is that we're currently in a transitional period and in the not-too-distant future all of this will be moot. I suspect a critical mass of musicians will figure out that they don't really need the recording labels, and they CERTAINLY don't need the "mainstream" distribution channel, and they'll just DIY it.

Before that will happen, though, we'll need to see a continued contraction of the "mainstream" channel - which is almost a given. Retail store record sales are in a freefall already. Wal-Mart is the largest one left, and even their sales are beginning to flatten as more people just hit ITMS or other online outlets.

And we'll have to see a critical mass of music buyers who are willing to buy a non-major-label release. But as the physical music product becomes less common, it's much less likely to even be aware of which label a favorite artist is on. Who cares? So we'll see indie labels become common sales points among more than the coffee-swilling hipsters.

And then someone would have to figure out some type of online distribution/payment system for the artists that just aren't interested in signing their life away to the major labels. Ideally, the songs would be available through a major outlet, like the ITMS, or else the whole thing could be ghettoized, but it IS possible, and in some form or another, almost inevitable.

2 votes

#5 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:08 PM EDT

Great comment.

I've long thought that Apple should just buy Apple Records and become a distributor.

There would be some logistics to overcome: The benefit of a label is that they front money to the big name bands for touring and packaging, etc.

I think that Apple would have to be a different kind of studio. (One molded for the digital era.)

Profit would have to go mainly to the band -- this would mean that Apple would not be paying for their world-tours, etc.

(I suppose they'd be more like an indy studio.) At any rate, I think this would eventually be a good thing because fame usually ends up wrecking the great bands anyway. (There are exceptions... but most of these learn how to scale back their fame to a manageable level.)

This would also allow Apple the opportunity to sell some music without DRM (by taking my strong suggestion of nixing it) and at the set price that Steve likes.

2 votes

#5.1 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:07 PM EDT

wolfger

Great letter. I just have one nitpick:

If a person settles a case in which they know they are innocent: That person isn't very intelligent.

In a world where justice is free, this would be true. In the real world, it quite possibly means that the person simply doesn't have much money, and the settlement is cheaper than a court battle (which, incidentally, decreases the income of the defendant, who misses work, but does not cut into the income of the plantiff who continues to make millions ~~on the backs of starving artists~~, and who does not, in fact, attend the trials at all, but merely sends a fleet of well-paid lawyers). Not to mention the fact that innocence does not guarantee the verdict will be in your favor. A fleet of RIAA lawyers versus whatever you can afford in your defense; you are likely to get steamrolled.

3 votes

#6 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:26 PM EDT

I suppose that could be true.

Still, I'm not aware of anyone who was -clearly- innocent that has had to go through a court process.

I've seen people who profess innocence but wasn't convinced that they actually were.

Again, if anyone can point me to an instance where someone was definitely innocent and still dragged through the legal system, I'd love to read it.

If I was told to pay $2500 dolllars "or" go to court and I didn't own a computer, for example... I'd write letters, I'd do everything to avoid both of those scenarios. And, I don't think it would be hard to do, either.

2 votes

#6.1 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:00 PM EDT

ScooterDMan

Great work here, Brian. Also, I love the comic.

My gripe here has always been that I am the sworn enemy of the RIAA, when, in fact, I believe I should be the posterboy.

I download more music than I buy (a great deal more than I buy), but I spend a great deal of money on the artists I support. In most cases, I would have never had exposure to these artists were it not for the albums I downloaded. Once I consider myself a "fan," I do my best to see a band in concert when they swing by my state, and I buy their new albums and live releases as they become available.

Last year, I went to seven concerts (bought CDs or other merch at each) and purchased around 20 CDs. I'm not sure how much more the RIAA would like me to spend, but I think asking anymore than that would be unreasonable.

I am not sure if you are familiar with The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Revolution, but in it, the authors suggest a solution that makes a lot of sense to me. They forsee a future wherein our entertainment media are like household utilities. We pay nominal monthly fees to access enormous amounts. It would be like paying an extra water bill.

They're argument is far more elborate than that, I promise, and it's worth checking out. You can listen to or read the first chapter here.

4 votes

#7 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:08 PM EDT

mikeomatic

I'm one of those here against my will. So, if this idea seems old, not hip, whatever, I apologize.
Music, movies, whatever are initially released on super encrypted, alligator rhythms whatever. After a reasonable time (28 days... or l;onger) they are released in varying stages of copy inhibiting locks. At some point you get them for a quarter. Just like buying a VHS of The Big Lobowski at a garage sale.

Why is everything so gol-damned complcated?

1 vote

#8 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:13 PM EDT

Well -- it doesn't seem "old or not hip" but it "does" seem a bit complicated. I think that confusing the customer with timed price points (and also with varying degrees of copy protection) would probably be a bad idea. Certainly not much better than the current scenario where there are different "types" of DRM on different files.

I think the simplest solution is to offer us a reasonable product at a reasonable price without DRM. With the first two parts of the equation in place I think the 3rd part wouldn't be an issue for the content providers. (Or, any worse than it is always going to be no matter what they have in place.)

Still, at least you're suggesting something. They seem content with a failing strategy.

1 vote

#8.1 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:17 PM EDT

Brad Farris

Brian, do you think that there is any importance to the issue of artist compensation versus fatcat/suit compensation? I can't imagine that anyone would disagree that artists deserve compensation derived from their copyright. How do we deal with the issue though, that a large number of people who are not the artist and who have absolutely no part in the creation of art are deriving gigantic profits from copyrights which they obtain from artists and buy and sell like commodoties? Not to even mention that nearly all of the time it is these very fatcats and suits who promote DRM and initiate expensive lawsuits. It is very easy to imagine that new distribution paradigms can be created which bypass traditional fatcat/suit-based distribution channels, but before they can become useful, won't artists have to be convinced to adopt them?

Really, I see the problem like this: people are willing to pay for music and movies and every other form of art which they would be interested in possessing. Apparently, they are not willing to pay $20.00 for a CD, although $20.00 is what has to be charged in order to compensate both the artist and the fatcats/suits who are involved in the distribution chain. It is easy to imagine, then, that without those distribution costs, artists could be compensated at a reasonable rate and consumers could purchase art at a rate which they are willing to pay. Is there something wrong with that idea?

2 votes

#9 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:19 PM EDT

Well, I almost think it's a separate issue. Recording contracts are pretty complex. The trouble is, the studios are -paying- for a lot of @!$%# when they sign an artist and -especially- when they sign an artist that they really want to promote. So, I think the biggest shame is that the little guys get screwed in order to help promote the big guys.

Still, these bands sign the contracts gambling on getting big. Gambling is gambling and I have a hard time sympathizing when they don't pay out.

I have hopes (as outlined in a comment above) that alternatives will pop up as the current model grows outdated.

2 votes

#9.1 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:22 PM EDT