Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How to Turn A Music Lover to Piracy

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the self-defeating-drm dept.

Music 521

dugn writes to tell us The Consumerist is running a story about how a run of the mill (read non-tech-savvy) music lover was pushed to become a pirate. "I've devoted a not-inconsequential chunk of my life to collecting music; to tracking down obscure records, cassettes, 8-Tracks and CD's of all genres and styles. And now apparently that is all but over. Music has somehow evolved from tangible things into amorphous collections of 1's and 0's guarded over by interested parties as if they were gold bullion. How so very sad."

cancel ×

521 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hmmm... (5, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432681)

Music has somehow evolved from tangible things into amorphous collections of 1's and 0's

What? Music has always been data. This guy isn't a music lover, he's a memorabilia lover.

Re:hmmm... (4, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432803)


What? Music has always been data.

That's right. Way back in Vienna, before their falling out, Prince-Archbishop Colloredo would pay Mozart rather well for his data.

Re:hmmm... (5, Insightful)

RobertNotBob (597987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432817)

For Fifteen THOUSAND Years ( I am NOT exagerating) Music was a service that people provided to each other.

Then, some guy (named Edison) created an anomily. A peculiar quirk of technology that turned it inot a PRODUCT.

Luckily, technology has come around to return Music to it's proper place. It is now, once again, a Service

That's hat really bug me about the music industry. They are trying to sell a Service, like it was a Product, and then they have the audasity to blame US for their problems. RIAA, here's a free clue for you. "Contempt of Business Model" is not a crime. Your market was a fluke; an abhoration of technology that has been corrected. Just like that buggy-whip manufacturer in the oft-quoted Danny Devito flick, your time has passed. Adapt, or die. Just like every body else.

Re:hmmm... (4, Insightful)

Sneakernets (1026296) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432903)

you are absolutely correct. Music is a temporal art. It's a shame those poor "Artists" are going to have to start being "artists" again, performing. That's where the money is, anyway. not the Albums.

Re:hmmm... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432915)


For Fifteen THOUSAND Years

The earth is only 6000 years old, Bob.

It's biblical too (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433001)

When they stopped paying the temple musicians, they went back home to provide for themselves. So they brought them all back and insisted they got paid so there would be music for the temple.

Now the funny part is that most commercial music sucks badly, and I wouldn't miss it if it died off completely. I'm sure there would be people creating music for other reasons that just money. There's lots of reasons to make music other than just money. I'm just saying that people were being paid for music before Edison's invention, and the musicians gave up and quit when they weren't being paid.

Re:hmmm... (3, Interesting)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433013)

Hey Bob,

For the vast majority of that fifteen thousand years you speak of, music wasn't a service that people (regular folk, that is) provided each other at all. For the lion's share of the first 14/15ths, nearly all music was for religious purposes, so at best it was a service by people for their gods, not for each other. Music for pleasure didn't become decently commonplace until the Baroque era in the West, and even then it was a service of talented professionals for some King or Prince, not the everyday folk.

Edison's phonograph did something indescribably precious. It gave people for mere pennies the ability to buy a service that once took a king's fortune to procure; even in Edison's day concert tickets were waaaaaay out of most people's price range. The easy dissemination of music in data-readable form accounts for the proliferation of music and musical styles that we enjoy today.

The only downide to commoditizing data just like commoditizing anything else, is that inevitably, outside intervention notithstanding, a cartel will form. That's the beef. Don't blame Edison for making possible the musical revolution in the modern world. It really, really, really isn't his fault that the RIAA exists.

p.s. Sorry about the Bob thing. Your nick...I couldn't resist.

Re:hmmm... (2, Funny)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433115)

For the vast majority of that fifteen thousand years you speak of, music wasn't a service that people (regular folk, that is) provided each other at all. For the lion's share of the first 14/15ths, nearly all music was for religious purposes, so at best it was a service by people for their gods, not for each other. Music for pleasure didn't become decently commonplace until the Baroque era in the West, and even then it was a service of talented professionals for some King or Prince, not the everyday folk.


Ever heard of a bard? Geez. It's like you've never read a fantasy novel before...

-matthew

Re:hmmm... (3, Informative)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433369)

Yes, I have heard of bard, troubadours, etc.. They became prominenet...in the Late Baroque era. Like I said. And most of them traveled from fiefdom to fiefdom and sang and played...for kings and lords, also like I said. It was the only way they could eat; playing for commoners (though it did happen on occassion) didn't fill the stomach until the economy could support it (think late classical period).

And respectfully, while fantasy novels on the whole are entertaining and occasionally even thought provoking, are by and large utter shite when it comes to historical accuracy. The closest one comes to historical accuracy in a novel like that is something like "Doomsday Book" by Connie Willis. And that portrayed the late medieval period; ain't no bards there.

Re:hmmm... (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433465)

Yes, I have heard of bard, troubadours, etc.. They became prominenet...in the Late Baroque era. Like I said. And most of them traveled from fiefdom to fiefdom and sang and played...for kings and lords, also like I said. It was the only way they could eat; playing for commoners (though it did happen on occassion) didn't fill the stomach until the economy could support it (think late classical period).

I think you are neglecting the quite proliferate history of an oral tradition through song amongst various indigenous peoples, which is a common pattern all over the world. It was quite commonly accompanied by instrumentation, typically percussion.

Respectfully disagree (5, Funny)

aztec rain god (827341) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433167)

I'd say before bringing up religion, that most music around the world in the past has either been about getting laid or not getting laid, just like nowadays.

Re:hmmm... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433179)

So you're saying that people didn't play music at various festivals and pagan celebrations, just for the sheer joy of it before the year 1000 AD? I find that hard to believe. So Romans, Mayans, Egyptians, Vikings, Akkadians, Greeks, et al had no concept of non-religious music? What was Nero doing as Rome burned then?

I bet music as a service to other people existed from day number two after Ogg the Caveman learned to beat two trees together and formed Stone Zeppelin.

Re:hmmm... (3, Interesting)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433485)

The vast majority of celebrations in all the societies you mentioned were religious celebrations, honoring this or that god or mythlogical-historical event. Did music exist that was non-religous? Probably. But was it played for the commoners' consumption? Absolutely not. Musicians played when they could get paid, becuase that's how they survived. The nobles/priests/kings they played for were generally jealous of te service being provided to them, and did not look kindly upon freebies. Which was the original point I was responding to: music generally as a service of one person for another did not happen. Music only happened from religious or noble patronage, and only for those purposes, until pretty damn recently.

BTW, the fiddle had not been invented by the time Nero was emperor. So he didn't fiddle. And if one is to argue that the classically educated did know how to play, you'd be right, but two points remain. One, nearly all the music they studied was religious in nature. Two, the people who were classically educated were on the whole filthy frikkin rich or in a noble family and did not play for the common folk at all, which again was the point I was originally responding to.

Re:hmmm... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433415)

For the vast majority of that fifteen thousand years you speak of, music wasn't a service that people (regular folk, that is) provided each other at all.

That is such complete and utter crap, such a Big Lie that I'm not sure quite where to begin. Are you american? Such total ignorance/revision of history...

Anyway, no, you're just wrong, since time immemorial "ordinary folk" have had music too. Sometimes with incredibly dirty lyrics.
Not all survives, but in ancient cultures where writing was commonplace, it was even written down in great detail. Even cultures where writing was less common for one reason or another, folk music has been passed down through the ages - see ALL OF FUCKING EUROPE YOU MORON.

(Aside: just because a song has religious overtones doesn't mean it's not for other people *too*. Do you think spectators singing "Guide me" at a Welsh rugby match are doing it for their god (Jehovah in the christian welsh case)? No, they're doing it because it's bloody impressive. And kind of scary if you're on the other side...).

Probably since before we were recognisably human, and it was all primate group-cohesion calls growing steadily more complex, music has been a part of life of every human.

So... (1)

Jeff Molby (906283) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433435)

[Insert obligatory "you greedy mo-fos are going to flame me" here]

Luckily, technology has come around to return Music to it's proper place. It is now, once again, a Service
... you're saying you want them to stop making recordings? No, you love the recordings, you just want them offered as loss-leaders. Some are doing that, but there's nothing wrong with others using a different model. Look, you can rationalize your behavior however you want, but the bottom line is this: if you don't like the terms under which something is offered, communicate your position to the seller and move along. You're not entitled to anything until you reach an agreement with the seller. If the rest of the market agrees with you, you can outlast the seller. He will either come around to your way of thinking or someone will replace him. Either way, when someone offers you what you're looking for, you reward that person with all the money you would have been spending all along. Capitalism 101, people.

Re:hmmm... (4, Insightful)

omeomi (675045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432847)

What? Music has always been data. This guy isn't a music lover, he's a memorabilia lover.

It hasn't always been digital data...It hasn't even always been recordable data...prior to analog recording techniques, the only way to record a song was to write it down and learn to play it yourself. And before notation, the only way to copy a song was to listen to somebody else play it, and lean to play it yourself (still the most rewarding way to learn new music, IMHO)

Re:hmmm... (4, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433101)

It hasn't always been digital data...It hasn't even always been recordable data...prior to analog recording techniques, the only way to record a song was to write it down and learn to play it yourself.

Of course, but the author of the article is conflating the information with the media. His real complaint is that the music industry is transitioning from a convenient media system to an inconvenient media system.

Whether or not the music data is stored Digitally, or in an Analog fashion is irrelevant. Music hasn't evolved into data, just like any other kind of information hasn't evolved into data in the transition from oral tradition to magnetic storage.

OT: slashcode bug? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433055)

Anyone noticed, on the front page it says "Your Rights Online: How to Turn A Music Lover to Piracy 8 of 6 comments". 8 out of 6? So that means 8 of the 6 posts are above my threshold? I'm confused now.

Re:hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433131)

when will the record companies understand that we want to listen to our music, at our own convenience.

That is why I love new websites like http://www.mytuneslive.com/ [mytuneslive.com]

I can listen to just about any song, and if I like I can create my own custom myspace mp3 player and upload songs from my computer and put them on my myspace profile.

Re:hmmm... (4, Informative)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433493)

when will the record companies understand that we want to listen to our music, at our own convenience.
We still have legal options - even moreso today (than before).

FTA (journal entry dated March 20, 2007):

So I headed to Rhino's online store, purchased the music, and downloaded the files.
He mentioned before that he spent 20k on vinyl and CDs already. He just wanted the Luna compilation. If you go to Rhino [rhino.com] , you can purchase the Luna cover:
1. He had the option of purchasing the CD (as he professed to in the past), but
2. He purchased a cheaper WMA with this big DISCLAIMER directly below (once you checkout):

Important Note: WMA files are NOT compatible with your iPod.
He opted for 2, and ignored the disclaimer.

I thought you can purchase a CD and download them to your iPod. Am I mistaken? I fail to see that as justification for becoming a music pirate.

Re:hmmm... (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433317)

Yes, but once upon a time people who wanted to enjoy that data were able to enjoy it on the medium of their choice.

Correction (4, Insightful)

Daishiman (698845) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432685)

Some people want us to belive that being a pirate is contradictory to being a music lover. Such a contradiction does not exist. Some of the people that I know that have the greatest appreciation for musica pirate like mad, and still spend hundreds on concerts and vinyl and have their very own bands.

Re:Correction (3, Interesting)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433141)

Brilliantly stated!

It's a sad thing to admit, but I'm officially afraid of music now. Afraid and angry. I'm afraid of rootkits, embedded media player software that auto-installs, and CDs that will not play on computers. And I'm right pissed off about this because, while I am indeed a music pirate, I have an enormous collection of legitimately purchased music.

Now I refuse to buy music. It is no longer an option. I hate the music industry and I refuse to support even my favourite artists for subjecting their fans to such hazards. I listen to music to accentuate whatever it is I'm doing, and I refuse to change my lifestyle to suit music.

I'm done with buying music. Maybe forever. It all depends on the music industry. I want hassle-free music. I don't care what medium it comes on as long as I can transfer it to whatever media suit what I'm doing that day. I refuse to repurchase albums on other formats. I'm done buying widgets. Music is not something that fits in your hand. Sell me music or begone.

P.s., when I hear audacious BS like the recording industry suing a restaurant for playing music in the dining room my sympathy for their pleas disappears. To empathise with an industry that cannot be satisfied is futile.

Re:Correction (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433311)

http://www.emusic.com/ [emusic.com] ?

(relatively cheap, drm free)

Correction of Correction (1, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433401)

Some people want us to belive that being a pirate is contradictory to being a music lover.

Summary says "turn to piracy", not "change into a pirate".

FA says "Does DRM drive even honest well-meaning people to piracy?"

You are complaining about an attack that never came.

What's a Pirate in This Context (4, Interesting)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432691)

If (as the "content industry" would like us to believe) we do not ever actually "own" our music, but "license" it, then there can't be any such thing as a Music Pirte. It's more like Unlicensed Music Listener. Like an unlicensed driver. Your thoughts?

Re:What's a Pirate in This Context (2, Interesting)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432709)

I think that's yet another stupid analogy.

Sorry for being flamish, but you asked and I answered honestly.

I can dig (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432771)

...so what's the prospect for making **AA officials and the congresspeople they've purchased stop calling unauthorized copying "theft", "piracy", etc.?

Re:I can dig (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433097)

Call it "santorum" if you like, but just because it's easy doesn't make it morally right.

Re:What's a Pirate in This Context (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432959)

I think there's truth to the idea. The problem is, the media companies won't take a stance on what you're paying for when you buy a CD. Are you buying a product, or some kind of license. They won't take a stance because they want to have their cake and eat it too.

They obviously don't want to say you've "purchased" anything, since it implies that you have some ownership. Ownership implies rights, and they don't want consumers to have any rights. On the other hand, if you've purchased a "license", then it becomes even more ambiguous. What are the terms of the license? When did I agree to it? If I'm purchasing a "license to listen" as you suppose, then what if I play my CD for a friend-- that friend has no license to listen. That friend is as much an "unlicensed listener" as if they downloaded the MP3 from the internet.

Of course, things would be made more clear if the media companies would simply agree that the issue is simply copyright, and the problem is with mass duplication and distribution. Of course, this is really only sticky because they don't seem to want to stipulate that consumers have fair-use rights or that copyrights have limits. With "licensing", they can continually charge consumers on whatever terms they wish, making the same person pay for the same media content repeatedly (i.e. once for your phone, once for your mp3 player, again when you buy a new mp3 player), but the idea of "fair use" threatens those sorts of business models.

Re:What's a Pirate in This Context (1)

edraven (45764) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433439)

Actually, the concept of "fair use" as understood historically by US courts of law, doesn't threaten the business models you refer to. Duplication of the entirety of a copyrighted work is generally not considered protected under fair use. A pretty user-friendly explanation of what is considered fair use can be found here on The Straight Dope [straightdope.com] . I highly recommend this series of four articles to anyone who finds US copyright law confusing.

An etymological question (2, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432985)

Has anyone ever traced the origins of the term "pirate" with regard to un-licensed informational products?

It just seems like a bizarre word to pick out of the entire English language to describe that activity. I can't imagine that it was chosen by anyone who didn't have a definite axe to grind against "unauthorized copying," since it's such a loaded term.

I wonder if its origins have ever been really well researched, because it's probably too late now to ever change it. I suspect that the generation of young people growing up now are going to, on hearing the word 'pirate,' think first of a hot copy of Photoshop, and only second of a smelly guy with a knife clutched in his teeth. So there's no getting rid of it now.

Re:An etymological question (2, Informative)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433143)

Back the early 80's there was an infamous BBS named "Pirate Harbor". The misuse of the term wasn't new then.

Re:An etymological question (5, Informative)

dylan_- (1661) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433411)

It's pretty old. In its entry for pirate (in this sense) OED has:

1603 T. DEKKER Wonderfull Yeare sig. A4, Banish these Word-pirates (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme.] 1668 J. HANCOCK Brooks' String of Pearls (Notice at end), Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies. 1703 D. DEFOE True-born Englishman in True Collect. I. Explan. Pref. sig. B3v, Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates.

Re:What's a Pirate in This Context (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433041)

In this context the term "piracy" refers to the act of making unauthorized duplications of works protected by copyright laws. In this case the works are musical performances contained in files and protected by DRM systems. So in that context I think the term fits perfectly. The music performance, in the form of a computer file (mp3/wma/wav whatever), while under the protection of copyright is being duplicated without proper authorization from the copyright holder. Even if you assume you are "licensing" it rather than "owning" it, the fact is that a copy of the performance is still being duplicated without authorization. That is (in this context) the very definition of "piracy".

Re:What's a Pirate in This Context (1)

sckeener (137243) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433227)

If (as the "content industry" would like us to believe) we do not ever actually "own" our music, but "license" it, then there can't be any such thing as a Music Pirte. It's more like Unlicensed Music Listener. Like an unlicensed driver. Your thoughts?

LOL, but at $100,000 per song per violation is one heck of a traffic ticket!

Re:What's a Pirate in This Context (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433325)

thanks for the tip earlier on mytuneslive.com which is a licensed company that is allowed to stream music over the net.

I see more websites like mytuneslive.com popping up, as long as the record companies don't try and shut them out or make licensing fees more expensive. There is a huge trend here forming I think.

Re:What's a Pirate in This Context (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433473)

If they are licenses then I'm waiting for the music biz to start rescinding then.

"Sorry, our data shows that you played the CD 'Cheezy-Poof' at a party in violation of your license. Please send the CD back to the publisher immediately. Thank you."

HOw about this (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432695)

Check me out I am the number one all you are losers this is incredible.

Piracy = Freedom (4, Insightful)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432723)

tee hee ... It has allowed me to listen to bubblegum pop without the scornful looks of music store clerks and no embarrassing CDs to hide when friends stop over.

Re:Piracy = Freedom (4, Funny)

illeism (953119) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432887)

Piracy allows me to have questionable taste in music ;)

Re:Piracy = Freedom (1)

bytor4232 (304582) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433113)

I'm so relieved I'm not the only one!

Re:Piracy = Freedom (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433129)

[piracy] has allowed me to listen to bubblegum pop without the scornful looks of music store clerks and no embarrassing CDs to hide when friends stop over.

"Dude, is that an ABBA directory I see on your filesystem?"

"Uh, no, uh, that's, um... where I hide my pr0n"

"Cool."

ROFL (5, Funny)

Grashnak (1003791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432761)

Well" she responded, "You didn't actually purchase the files, you really purchased a license to listen to the music, and the license is very specific about how they can be played or listened to." Now I was baffled. "Records never came with any such restrictions," I said. She replied, "Well they were supposed to, but we weren't able to enforce those licenses back then, and now we can"
And here you all thought that you owned all those 8 track tapes, when in fact you're just storing them for the company that made them.

Re:ROFL (2, Interesting)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432831)

Question: If the liscencee pisses off the record company enough (vocal critic, successful lawsuits), can they void the liscences for any 'ol reason? Would be interesting if they attempted to tell large groups (political parties) they they were suddenly unlawfully in possession of copyrighted material and must immediately destroy it.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433437)

because there's no such thing as a liscense.

I mean, come on, how many other posts were there on the screen with the word "license" correctly spelled when you decided to throw in that extra "c"?

Re:ROFL (3, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433489)

Question: If the liscencee pisses off the record company enough (vocal critic, successful lawsuits), can they void the liscences for any 'ol reason?

Did you sign a licensing agreement when you purchased the music? No? Then there is no license, and your use of the material is governed only by appropriate laws involving intellectual property, copyright, and first sale. Period.

Re:ROFL (1)

bhovinga (804122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433103)

Should charge them a storage fee

What goes around and around comes around and ... (2, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433121)

"Records never came with any such restrictions," I said. She replied, "Well they were supposed to, but we weren't able to enforce those licenses back then, and now we can"

And here you all thought that you owned all those 8 track tapes, when in fact you're just storing them for the company that made them.


I've seen some of my grandparents' early 45s and they did indeed have a label with a license printed on them. It said things like RCA owned the record and the music on it and all you had was a license to listen to it under certain terms yadda yadda.

(I think one of the terms was that it had to be a genuine RCA branded player, too. Shades of the CSS licensing scheme! Also mattress tags and video tape "FBI warnings".)

Purchasing a License? (5, Interesting)

Otis2222222 (581406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432767)

"Well" she responded, "You didn't actually purchase the files, you really purchased a license to listen to the music, and the license is very specific about how they can be played or listened to." Now I was baffled. "Records never came with any such restrictions," I said. She replied, "Well they were supposed to, but we weren't able to enforce those licenses back then, and now we can"
Wow. This succinctly sums up everything that's wrong with the online music business, in my opinion. If I am going to pay 99 cents a track, the product I buy needs to be as equivalent as possible to what you get when you buy a physical product from the music store. For that matter one of my main objections to online music stores is the fact that you cannot download lossless-encoded songs (let alone DRM-free).

Re:Purchasing a License? (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432923)

If I am going to pay 99 cents a track, the product I buy needs to be as equivalent as possible to what you get when you buy a physical product from the music store

You fool! They're just going to raise the price of CDs now so the online track is scaled accordingly :(

Re:Purchasing a License? (1)

SlashdotOgre (739181) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433137)

I definitely agree, $0.99 is way to high for lower quality DRM encumbered audio files. I'm fortunate enough to have lived in urban areas of California, and have the option of buying most of my music used. Used CD's typically range in price from $1.99-8.99 for a full CD (which is often 12+ tracks). With used music you're paying much less than $0.99 per track, the quality is significantly better, you can make as many backups as you want, and you can transcode to any format you want (no DRM). Furthermore, most major distributors (Walmart, Best Buy, etc.) often offer the latest music as loss leaders which typically run $9.99-11.99 which is still pretty close to iTunes prices except the music is lossless and DRM free. Until online music can compete with loss leaders from big stores and used CD's, I don't see any compelling reason to buy online. However after writing this, I should qualify it by stating that I'm not the type of person who just buys a couple tracks. If you only buy one good track for $.99 versus spend $5.99 for a CD with 12 tracks total and only two you care about, then you might be better off using the iTunes model. In my personal experience I've often found some of my favorite songs were never singles and I would have never heard them had I not bought the whole CD.

Re:Purchasing a License? (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433413)

I know people claim they can hear a difference between CDs and digital mp3 files. But I really think that is a select few. I must have average ears cause they all sound kinda the same to me.

Re:Purchasing a License? (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433205)

No not equivalent, it needs to be better. A few years back equivalent would have been enough, now you need the customers back. Another fine example of (D)RM hurting the buisness is the movie 300 (and others). It doesn't get released until the 30th around here, but it is already possible to download it from the net on a DVD, granted it is a screener, but you get the comfort of your own home when watching it. I already got my tickets to 300, and I'm sticking to watching it in the cinema, but a less expected movie would have a hard time getting me to the cinema, since the product is somewhat worse than what the "competition" is offering.

A nice fix would be to ensure I could watch it from DVD from day 1 - and then remove all those stupid commercials from the DVD, I want to watch the movie and I already payed for it, bug off!

Re:Purchasing a License? (1)

Yusaku Godai (546058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433353)

Right on. If I could get more or less the same product that I get at the store, that is, lossless, drm-less encoding, and preferably high-quality scans of cover art and liner notes, I'd totally pay for downloads.

An audiobook lover moves to piracy. (4, Insightful)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432769)

I love audio books, mostly because I work out, and learn stuff at the same time. I love my audible subscription, but after buying books from Audible that are DRM'ed, and running into extreme troubles playing them on one of my "non-approved" MP3 players, or running into trouble trying to convert the files into MP3 so I can actually use them in my car, I started downloading them off of bittorrent sites.

And that is the funny thing. I have been downloading the *EXACT* same books that I have paid Audible for from bittorrent. I have no problem buying Audio Books - but when I buy them, the DRM gets in my way, and I cannot always listen to the book I paid for in the manner I want. I *WANT* to pay for the books, I have no problem with that. I just want to be able to listen to them as I choose, not as the company controlling them chooses.

In the same way, I have found myself downloading MP3's of music that I already own on CD because it is faster for me to download the music that I already have, than to go through my CD collection and rip all the music.

I cannot see any of these industries surviving for long when they stand in the way of what consumers who are willing to pay for what actually want. The Barenaked ladies have it right. The author of this article is correct, we are being driven to piracy. At least I have never used Rhino.

Re:An audiobook lover moves to piracy. (2)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433209)

In the same way, I have found myself downloading MP3's of music that I already own on CD because it is faster for me to download the music that I already have, than to go through my CD collection and rip all the music.
This is where it gets even more interesting. If as they say you are only buying a license to listen to the tracks on a CD, are you still guilty of pirating even though by their definition you're allowed to have those tracks? What's the real legal difference between obtaining MP3s from the CDs yourself, or getting them from others who have already done that job?

Re:An audiobook lover moves to piracy. (1)

koreth (409849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433319)

What's the real legal difference between obtaining MP3s from the CDs yourself, or getting them from others who have already done that job?

They can catch you doing the second, but not the first.

(Yet.)

Re:An audiobook lover moves to piracy. (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433225)

In the same way, I have found myself downloading MP3's of music that I already own on CD because it is faster for me to download the music that I already have, than to go through my CD collection and rip all the music.
I'm not so sure about this. I have all but given up on downloading most music, with the exception of a few tracks here and there from Itunes. But I do buy used CDs from Amazon Marketplace, rip them, and sell them again. Downloading can often take longer than ripping a CD, and it is often hard for me to find a torrent for a CD I want. Amazon Marketplace has most everything I want, and once I sell it again I end up getting the music for a few dollars per CD. Plus I know they are quality rips because I do it myself, at my chosen bitrates.

Re:An audiobook lover moves to piracy. (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433423)

I feel largely the same way. I don't particularly want to be able to copy my music onto my friends' computers, or onto their iPods. I do, however, want to be able to use the music/audiobooks/videos that I purchase in the way that I see fit. I don't think that it is reasonable for the copyright owner to be able to require that I only listen/view/read their content in the way they see fit.

I do understand their side, though. If you want to make a living with your creativity, you've got to be concerned with people going around the legally established means of getting copies of your content. I really do understand that. My hope is that a good middle-ground will eventually be found, so that I can do what I want with the content I purchase, and the artists can be assured of their deserved profits.

I still like the idea of watermarking content with the name of the person who purchased it. In this way, the source of a 'leak' could be found and sued. You'd take a giant risk even in giving copies of your purchases to close friends, because if they ever made future copies, your name would be on them.

That plan isn't perfect, and there is a lot that would have to be worked out, but it's a decent step in figuring out how we can all work together on this. Sadly, however, I don't think most people actually care about viewing the content "the way they want to." The success of ITMS underscores this--you don't see the masses complaining that they can't listen to their ITMS tracks on a Zune--you hear geeks and information packrats making these complaints.

Re:An audiobook lover moves to piracy. (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433447)

"I have been downloading the *EXACT* same books that I have paid Audible for from bittorrent. I have no problem buying Audio Books - but when I buy them, the DRM gets in my way...

So, next time you may want to save the trouble and download it right away... At least the label would listen you (and scream 'pirate', but will listen).

"I have found myself downloading MP3's of music that I already own on CD because it is faster for me to download the music that I already have, than to go through my CD collection and rip all the music."

Ripping a CD colledction may be much easier than you think... And you'll get a much better quality.

Its sad really (3, Interesting)

mulvane (692631) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432779)

I have a collection starting on vinyl I inherited. I have many many old vinyls, and I have cassettes and cd's of many of these as well. To think, I have media pre-dating all this non-sense about RIAA, and who owns what. If I take a digital rip of a Elvis song now, I supposedly owe the RIAA money for it. Even though I realistically own multiple copies on media of various types. It seems to me especially on older classics that I should have a right to do with the music as I wish now. Is there a grandfather clause for such old media? Can I legally just acquire a new digital format for free now if I wished as to archive and preserve my collection?

Re:Its sad really (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433075)

> If I take a digital rip of a Elvis song now, I supposedly owe the RIAA money for it.

Depends. If it's pre 1957 Presley, and you don't have your freedom restricted by living in the States, then you're free to download from whoever you like.

Vinyl to Digital, but Ephemeral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433417)

Here: http://crudcrud.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Thank you RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432795)

for pushing this poor poor user to piracy.. (or will they catch him, and the story evolves more?) news at 11

Been there, done that (2, Insightful)

John3 (85454) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432863)

I've also been frustrated by trying to mix and match different music listening formats in the digital age. iTunes music doesn't show up on my Windows Media Center via my Xbox 360 and some WMA downloaded songs can't be listened to on my iPod. I own about 800 LP's and nearly 1000 CD's so I too have fattened the pockets of Sony/BMG/Warner/etc. over the past thirty years. The music industry is due for a collapse of epic proportions...just read today that music sales are down 20% [wsj.com] so far in 2007. Here's hoping the entire industry falls apart and artists can start dealing with fans directly.

Re:Been there, done that (2, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433173)

i have felt the same problem, it's worse for video.. Apple TV and iPod Video vs XBox 360 vs Tivo.. I really wanted to start setting up a digital library, but need 3 or 4 copies of each to play back on various devices.

The blame isnt the RIAA/MPAA or industries, the blame is on Apple, MSFT and Tivo.

Nobody forced DRM on any of those devices but the makers of those devices. If a 20 dollar dvd player can play DivX with no problems, there's no reason the others can't - other than companies wanting to set up their own private distribution mechanisms.

Jobs showboating about "I really wish we could ditch DRM" was pure bullcrap. It was his choice to use it. Plenty of content owners would do away with it today if it meant reaching a wider audience.

Sand on a beach (5, Insightful)

Ilex (261136) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432913)

The problem with the mafiaa is that they have turned their back on the traditional physical ownership aspects of music in favour of a rental, pay to play model.

Trying to sell digital information on the internet is literally like trying to sell sand on a beach. It's infinitely available. They're using DRM to create the illusion of scarcity, kind of like shovelling sand back into the sea, what they're really doing is just digging a big hole for themselves instead of trying to find somewhere which doesn't have any sand (improving their business model). When the tide comes in they'll just bury their heads and hope for the best.

Re:Sand on a beach (1)

Bluegil (1078521) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433223)

The illusion as you put it, revolves around the "fear factor". DRM is mainly the tool used in controlling distribution. Artist have a choice to make, consumers just wait in-line. The goal is stream-lining content. RIAA likes the idea because it supports their intention, (being that of power brokers) control the flow. DRM content from major labels or live with MP3's from Independent Artists. Quality content is what the joy-stick is pointing at, plus controlling interest where the content is played. But lets not delue the focuse RIAA, they represent the Record Companies and Content Owners not Artist. I have yet to see one post anywhere of an Artist receiving royalty payments from RIAA efforts.

Metaphor overload! (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433333)

I just have to tell you - that is the single biggest, most protracted and yet accurate metaphor I've ever seen.

Bravo sir. Bravo.

Not pushed or forced... chose (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432945)

I'm no fan of the draconian restrictions that exist on most digital music, but this guy was not "pushed to become a pirate" or "forced to become a pirate". He downloaded material without bothering to make sure that what he was downloading was what he needed in order to play the music.

This entire blog post should be retitled "Why I chose to become a pirate, and how my own ignorance of media formats helped it along." The guy made a mistake (downloading WMA format music to play on an iPod) and rather than deal with it and eat his $10 losses, decided that he would rather get his music for free.

Please... if you pirate music, good for you. But don't claim it was forced on you, and don't claim that you didn't choose to do it of your own free will. Man up and take responsibility for you actions.

Note: I am not a record-industry shill, I'm just sick of people justifying their actions in order to clear their consciences.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (1)

mulvane (692631) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433127)

What is this guy supposed to do when he does purchase music for an ipod, then his ipod breaks? What if ipod becomes unavailable to him, or he purchases another music player that now want play his itunes music? You fail to see that he wasn't ignorant as he also tried to play the music on allowed devices but the license wouldn't come through so he could. You my friend have fallen into the trap it seems. This should not be difficult, this sould just work. Like most things we 'purchase', we expect to be able to get fair use out of them. Hell, fair use even carries a warranty in some circles. What, your car broke down after 200 miles?!?! We can fix that under warranty.. You don't hear, 'I'm sorry, you traveled down a road without proper guide rails, and the reason your engine blew up was because it feared of running over the cliff, please, next time buy a car with a fearless engine so it will be compatible with that type of road'..

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433185)

I'm not saying he wasn't justified. What I am saying is that it was HIS choice. No one else's. No one threatened to break his legs if he didn't pirate mnusic.

Maybe the choice he made is the best choice. But no matter what, it was his to make.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (5, Insightful)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433145)

We're just mincing words here, but I'd say it's valid to argue he was at least "pushed" towards becoming a music pirate. He obviously wasn't originally someone who had any desire to take a free copy of an album over a purchased one. In fact, his very last purchase was supposedly made despite finding the very same songs he was seeking on the net as a free download!

It sounds like he's simply saying he was always willing to spend his money on music, as long as he got 3 things out of the transaction. First, he expected to receive a good quality recording (better than what he'd get from some 2nd. generation copy). Second, he expected that some of his money would find its way back to the artist, to ensure they were fairly compensated for their work. And lastly, he expected the music to be playable on any device that advertised itself as capable of performing a music playback operation on that type of media. (EG. A tape player should play back ANY audio cassette he purchased. A record player should play back ANY vinyl record he purchased. And an iPod should play back ANY digital music purchases of his.)

The current state of the industry means those requirements are no longer being universally met - so yes, that effectively "pushes" him towards looking at piracy as a more viable alternative.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (2, Insightful)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433151)

I've downloaded albums that I own, because I didn't feel like getting around the DRM, and I want all of my music on my computer, rather than changing CDs and wearing my cupholder out. Yes, I *chose* to "pirate" the music. But I paid for it, too.

He spent $10 on the music. He shouldn't have to check formats and DRM licenses, especially licenses that *would not download* (did you get that far?). He was trying to gain the ability to listen to the music he downloaded legally. And he couldn't do it. From TFA:

In the end, I never was able to get the music to play on anything--my computer, on a CD or on my iPod. I invested $10, several hours of my time, and my reward was, well, nothing.

He *couldn't get it to play* because the license wouldn't download. This was after he passed up getting the music for free in a .zip file in order to support the band. You can't just chalk this up to "he would rather get his music for free." He wanted to pay for it. But he wanted to be able to listen to it, too.

The guy guesstimated having spent $20,000 on music in his life. He's not the type who'd rather get it for free -- sounds like he was happily paying out the nose for music, when it worked. This guy was a model customer for the music industry and he just got pissed off when anti-piracy measures bit him in the ass.

Which is something a lot of people on /. say often: DRM and other protection schemes tend to only annoy legitimate customers. Those who want to pirate will find a way.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433249)

I'm in agreement with you. But it's still a choice he made. I've been ripped off before, when purchasing physical goods. I don't really want to make the theft analogy, since I know it doesn't apply, but I didn't then go and steal a replacement from someone.

It is partly semantics, but semantics give insight into how people think about things. He was not forced. He was given a set of options, and chose pirating the music.

I am a big believer in personal responsibilty, and it seems to me like he's shifting the choice to the music industry, rather than explaining how their actions led to him making the choice he made. There is a difference, and while it is subtle, it is a big one.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433469)

I think he explained it pretty well, though. He went over how he called the label o ntwo occasions. The response he got, especially from the second person (the male CSR), was just ridiculous.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (2, Insightful)

nbannerman (974715) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433189)

He downloaded material without bothering to make sure that what he was downloading was what he needed in order to play the music.

CDs and cassettes have been runaway successes in the past precisely because they avoided this kind of problem; you didn't need to 'research' anything to get what you wanted. You buy the CD, it works in any CD player. Of course various companies have got egg on their face when they tried to ignore the red book standards; hello Sony.

So a consumer assumed downloadable music would work the same way. A rather honest mistake in my eyes. I don't think the onus should be on consumers to research downloadable music, the players and the various formats.

As for his actions afterwards, well, that is a different matter. But I don't think anyone should be made to jump through hoops just to get an online content.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (1)

UtucXul (658400) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433231)

He downloaded material without bothering to make sure that what he was downloading was what he needed in order to play the music.
But you're ignoring the fact that the limitation he ran into was not a technological limitation or a lack of drivers or anything innocent like that. His problem was that he didn't think that he was buying a product that was intentionally crippled. Normally, we tend to think that things we buy are not intentionally broken by the manufacturer or seller, but with music that is no longer the case.

Note: I am not a record-industry shill, I'm just sick of people justifying their actions in order to clear their consciences.
Just because you say you aren't something doesn't make it true. You want someone else to take responsibility for their actions, then you should take responsibility for your words (and what they can get you labeled as).

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433385)

His problem was that he didn't think that he was buying a product that was intentionally crippled.
Well, that's some loaded language there. BUT, anyone who does even basic research into downloaded music is aware of the DRM problems. And almost every site that sells WMA music has a disclaimer that the downloads won't work on an iPod. Caveat emptor.

Just because you say you aren't something doesn't make it true. You want someone else to take responsibility for their actions, then you should take responsibility for your words (and what they can get you labeled as).
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with what a shill is -- calling someone a shill doesn't make them one. Them taking payment from the organization's position they espouse does. But if you check my full post history, you'll find I'm consistently in favor repealing the DMCA, of limiting DRM, of better consumer protection for digital media. People on Slashdot, such as yourself, seem to forget that it's possible for someone "on the same side" to have divergent positions on tangential topics.

I take full responsibility for my words. What I cannot take responsibility for is when people infer things that are false.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (1)

mudphud (1078529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433295)

I could agree that he wasn't "forced" into piracy but he was pushed. The point is that millions of people have iPods and many of them are not familiar with DRM and various forms of media formats they just want to be able to buy the music they want and have it play on their iPod. Your post suggests that he should have known better than to to download these files but if the music industry wants people to pay for their downloads they are going to have to make it more user friendly. CD players would play any music CD you bought you didn't have to worry about these things and people expect that of digital music. It seems the moral of this story is that the music industry is shooting themselves in the foot as their methods to stop piracy do little to stop people from downloading illegal music and frustrate those that try to buy their digital music. To many the choice appears to be: should I pay for an inferior product or get the free product that while being illegal is easier to use.

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (1)

bbernard (930130) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433383)

"He downloaded material without bothering to make sure that what he was downloading was what he needed in order to play the music."

Indeed, but that isn't really the point, is it?

The point is he has a music player. He found music he could legally purchase. But it turns out that he would have to jump through hoops to get the music he wanted to work on his music player. What were his choices?

1. Go without.
2. Buy a new, compatible, music player.
3. Go through a bunch of pain to convert the music.
4. Download it from another source in a format he can use.

The point is that when he tried to do things the "right^H^H^H^H^H legal way," he had to go through a lot of work for something that should have taken about 2 minutes. If the music industry can't figure out how to make DRM work for someone like him (compatible with ANY music player, any OS, any firewall, etc.) then they're working against themselves by frustrating their customers into "piracy."

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (0)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433479)

I fully agree with you. But I still have to take exception with the idea that he was 'forced' or 'pushed' into anything.

Is the current system broken? Yes.

Did he make the best choice available to him? Most likely.

Does that mean that he didn't have free will, that he didn't choose to do something illegal?

Re:Not pushed or forced... chose (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433427)

Maybe not "forced to pirate", but they definitely sent the message that doing business with record companies in a legitimate manner means throwing money away for no return. They sent the message that, if you just want to listen to music, and you're not a computer genius, you're better off downloading illegal DRM-free copies.

The guy made a mistake (downloading WMA format music to play on an iPod) and rather than deal with it and eat his $10 losses, decided that he would rather get his music for free.

So what? Why should Joe Sixpack be expected to track the licensing differences between WMA and AAC? If I went to a record store, spent $10 on a cassette, and then went back and wanted to exchange it for a $10 credit on the same album in CD form, you'd be able to do that. (At least, you used to be able to do that) Why not the same for WMAs? If what he really purchased was the right to listen to that music, we shouldn't he be able to retrieve whatever format he likes to exercise that right?

It sounds more like the record company felt entitled to his $10 whether or not they provided him with anything of value.

MAC and Microsoft? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18432987)

Is interesting anyways, how people is not complaining about Apple iTunes not supporting wma. Since there are lots of Apple lovers, I guess that would only cause that people will start complaining about Microsoft also.

The conclusion is, once again, that both Microsoft and Apple want to win a war of digital music formats, and RIAA supports both of them without measuring this kind of consequences.

Too bad for them.

Start with... (2, Insightful)

zdc (1064870) | more than 7 years ago | (#18432991)

I imagine you do it with a hat, a bird, and a peg leg.

What's the story??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18433007)

tracking down obscure records

Like DRM'd records?

In a few years DRM'd records will become collector items just like rare vinyl records.

Forget RIAA (3, Insightful)

dmm79 (1060300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433057)

This is exactly why I don't even bother paying for music any more. RIAA can't make up their mind about licenses. If I own a CD and lose it, I have to pay for another one, which means I owned the CD that I lost. But RIAA will tell you that you don't own anything, you get a license to listen to it. Ok, then if I lose my CD give me another one for free, right?! And by the way, anybody who owns any vinyls, tapes, or any other kind of media should digitise it as many times as he wants to. At the time you bought those things there was no law about digitising music, therefore you still don't break any laws according to the old license. And why would you even think about what you can or cannon do with the music you bought, forget RIAA and do whatever you want.

Urestricted records. (-1, Troll)

serial_crusher (591271) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433079)

"Now I was baffled. 'Records never came with any such restrictions,' I said." Last time I tried to play my record in a CD player.... that didn't go so well. Next time, RTFM before buying the stuff and see if it will play in your equipment or not.

That sound that you hear faintly in the background (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433111)

is the sound of the death of an industry. The closer that death comes to us, the louder it will be, but no matter the volume of the sound, you cannot change it into anything other than the sound of death.

IMO, that is the ONLY possible outcome of the head-on crash of the entertainment industry, technology, and their desire to control the use of content. It may take awhile, but the current entertainment industry will die. It will probably be slow, painful, and not fun to watch but it is inevitable.

wasted time (2, Insightful)

llZENll (545605) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433215)

"I've devoted a not-inconsequential chunk of my life to collecting music; to tracking down obscure records, cassettes, 8-Tracks and CD's of all genres and styles."

Perhaps part of the realization is that was wasted time, as now you can collect music from anyone who ever existed in a matter of seconds. The fun was probably not the music, but the journey, experiences, and people met in doing so.

Not a license to listen (5, Informative)

edraven (45764) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433221)

"You don't understand," I said, "These files were not copied or pirated, I actually purchased them."

"Well" she responded, "You didn't actually purchase the files, you really purchased a license to listen to the music, and the license is very specific about how they can be played or listened to."

Now I was baffled. "Records never came with any such restrictions," I said.

She replied, "Well they were supposed to, but we weren't able to enforce those licenses back then, and now we can"

This seems to be a common misunderstanding brought about by, I think, the inherently confusing nature of, let's face it, archaic copyright law in a modern context. A license grants the licensee the ability to legally do something from which normally they are legally prohibited. There are no laws that prohibit anyone from listening to music. What we have are laws that prohibit anyone apart from the author of any kind of creative work from (among other things) making a copy of that work. If you're not the author and you want to make a copy of a creative work then (with a few exceptions provided in copyright law) you need a license, because otherwise it is illegal for you to do so. When you purchase music online, you are buying a digital copy from an entity that is entitled by license to produce that copy. You are not buying a license to anything, and you don't inherit the rights which that license grants. Your buddies have just as much legal right to listen to the song you downloaded as you do, and just as little legal right to make a copy of it. That's how it works.

Lack of availability did it for me... (2, Interesting)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433253)

...The tale is such. Once upon a time I heard a song on the radio. It was a good song, I liked it, it was a summer song, it disappeared after that summer, it was by a one hit wonder, and being "poor" trying to find a job, and then "poor" and "busy" because the job sucked required huge hours and didn't pay well, I never got around to finding out more about the song, or where it came from, or for that matter since it never seemed to get announced by the DJ's on the radio who it was even by.

Well as I said it was a good song catchy, and it got stuck in my head "FOR YEARS" literally. And for a long time I just couldn't figure out how to find or get this song. Then came the magic of the internet and search engines. I could remember a couple lines of the song and from time to time I'd plug the lines I could remember into Google and Yahoo, etc...well a little at a time I started finding the song's information at forst I got a title, but no singer or band, then eventually I got the singer, however it wasn't attributed to any album, and as I said...ONE HIT wonder.

Then the Magic Day, I found out this song only ever appeared on the sound track to a particular movie, from that summer I remembered it from...great go find the sound track. Umm...only ever produced on cassette tape, likelyhood of finding a tape copy of a silly summer movie soundtrack...LOW...VERY LOW...but OK, I'll give it a shot...the search begins.

I checked every obscure/rare music reseller I could think of, and more that people turned me on to...NO LUCK...but you guessed that.

So then along comes various P2P networks, and sites, etc...and yes I looked in iTunes, not there....Then, by pure luck one day on a bittoreent site I remember to try plugging in the song, and there it is...Downloaded!

Re:Lack of availability did it for me... (1)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433451)

Pretty much off-topic, and I do apologize, but I'm probably not the only one who's curious: what song was it? I've been in your shoes plenty of times, as have many others. Congrats on finally tracking the little bugger down--it's a really great feeling when you find it.

Steal It! Ha Ha! Steal It All! (-1, Troll)

CranberryKing (776846) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433261)

I love music now, because it's all free! And I can STEAL IT! HA HA! I Love to Steal Things! Rip off the World!

I want to steal MORE things! Ha ha.. STEAL IT ALL!!

Well said, save for one typo: (2, Funny)

A_Non_Moose (413034) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433277)

FTA

the best they can do is tell me to wander the streets of Seattle looking for different internet providers who might allow me to download the music that I have already paid for, music that I have spent the better part of three house trying to listen to, and which is still unusable?


I'm sure someone not so damn tired either auto translated (like loose/lose which this gent did (huzzah!)) or
figured it out quickly.

I did not.

Thought 1: three house? Three houses? Why go to three houses? Different internet connections?

Thought 2: Tree house? He has a tree house? WTF...makes no sense. Tree house are fun, tho.

Thought 3: Time? Three hours? Ah, makes sense now. Odd. Funny, but odd.

Thought 4: HEY, I'll be damned, the typed lose instead of loose! Wow, house/hours typo forgiven!

Thought 5: I need a nap.

Economic Warfare and Defective Products (2, Informative)

coats (1068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433289)

Clearly, Rhino has attempted to sell him a defective product. He should force them to refund his money; if they refuse, he should exercise his legal rights for the credit card he used to pay for the music: he has the legal right to refuse payment for the defective product, and get his credit card refunded the amount of the purchase.

It will cost Rhino far more to deal with the credit card company's fees for his refusing payment than he paid originally for the music.

How to make a music piratre in three easy steps!! (1)

alisson (1040324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433309)

1) Find the bands people like
2) Sign them on with Sony
3) Never sell an album again!

Related article coming soon... (1, Funny)

goldspider (445116) | more than 7 years ago | (#18433389)

"How to Turn a Cheapskate Freeloader to Piracy"

Guess which article more people would relate to (or at least more accurately represent).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>