RIP: A remix Manifesto – A reaction – Part 10 of 13

This is part 10 of 13 of my reaction to RIP: A remix Manifesto. You can find previous posts here: Part 0, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9.

Don’t get me started on Lobbyists. You don’t want that rant.

Digital Rights Management doesn’t work. We have seen example after example of companies putting arbitrary restrictions on digital media only to have it thwarted. Take Apple iTunes. When Apple convinced the four major music labels (Sony BMG, Warner Music, Universal, and EMI) to sell music through the iTunes Music Store, one of the deal requirements was inclusion of some DRM on the songs. It prevented you from burning the song to a CD more than 10 times and only allowed the song to be played on no more than five computers. Eventually, in January Apple announced all songs on its store would be DRM free. Many believed this happened because of pressure from competitors who sold music DRM-free. Amazon.com had been selling DRM-free mp3 files for a year at that point. The fear of customers going else where was what made Apple accept a 3-tier pricing model the music labels wanted in return for the ability to sell DRM-free music.

Why would one care if their music had DRM? To me, it is a no brainer. Being limited to play something on only 5 devices is absolutely ridiculous. It is an arbitrary limit on something I bought and paid for. Enough said. If you want to learn more about DRM and the negative consequences around it you should head over to defectivebydesign.org.

What burns my biscuit more than anything is the fear mongering and scare tactics by the RIAA, MPAA, and the music industry. The guy in the suit wasn’t talking to the kids as much as he was scolding and accosting. This is all to common in the so called war on piracy. Instead of finding solutions to the issue, the reaction has been to sue the pants off of customers. No wonder CD sales have plummeted in recent years. I don’t react well when someone tries to restrict my freedom and tells me to like. I react even worse when they try to push this nonsense on children and automatically treat them like criminals.

Merriam-Webster online defines extortion as the act or practice of extorting [to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power] especially money or other property. This is exactly what the RIAA is doing to its customers. The woman in this clip is one of the few who have tried to stand up to the RIAA. She is a brave soul and unfortunately not the norm.

The University of Maine is currently in the practice of handing names over to the RIAA when they say that illegal file sharing is taking place on a particular IP address. While I will hold judgement on this practice, I can certainly tell you that there are many students facing this possible breach of privacy. Many of my students talk about their experiences with the RIAA. I had one student who was sued for $400,000. She reported the RIAA didn’t even try to push the lawsuit to court. They only asked for a $8,000 settlement. One that her family had to pay or else face an even more expensive lawsuit. If that sounds extreme, you would be correct. Unfortunatley it has been common practice. Are these actions realy justified?

I call BS. If your BS meter isn’t going off, here are a few other tidbits for you.

• There is a $2 surchage on CD burners that goes to the RIAA
• The RIAA collects a 2% levy on blank CDs.
• The average monetary value of a song on a CD is 70 cents. The average awarded to the RIAA in compensatory damage for a song is $750, but have gone as high as $9,250.
• If you post a video of your child dancing to the radio, you are in breach of copyright.

“Technology giveth, technology taketh away.” I love that.