|
|
Recording Artists Ask For DRMby George Ziemann -- June 4, 2006 I should have saved yesterday's headline for today -- Taking Stupid to the Limit. The whole story is over at DMusic, consisting of a press release from various music-related groups saying that they now insist on DRM. Otherwise the end of the world shall surely come to pass, for the sky is falling and a piece will certainly hit me in the head. Let's see, who are we talking about?
In 34 years of performing and staging shows, from bar gigs to concerts, including radio and television, I have never, ever, encountered a union representative in the real world.
Recording Arts and Sciences, eh? They're "dedicated to improving the cultural condition and quality of life for music and its makers." And DRM will do that? Sounds more like Advertising and Sales than anything having to do with art or science. Then we have the Recording Artists Coalition, 108 artists/bands (not counting the dead ones) who have come together to help the recording industry legislate the future. They'll show up for a Senate meeting, photos will be taken, autographs will be signed, idols will be fawned over, and these artists will offer their souls, probably pretending that they still own them. I used to like a lot of those artists, but they're selling out the average fan. As an amazing number of people still are not aware, DRM is supposed to stand for Digital Rights Management. It's such a positive-sounding phrase. Managing rights and all. Very proper, very moral. It's all about the artists, after all. Apparently not in possession of a lizard with an English accent suitable for commercials, here come the artists to convince you how much they need it. From the press release: "The legislation would protect performers' income from sales and transmissions of their recordings by requiring content protection measures in digital transmissions and by providing platform parity in the licensing measures that apply to various types of digital music services. The legislation also requires that uncertainties in the licensing of sound recordings for use on the Internet be resolved." You need "content protection" with "platform parity." So Apple and Microsoft and Linux and Napster and whatever all have to work together, which is asking a lot right there. Additionally, the four (three?) major labels all have to work together and agree, but that's how they do everything anyway. I do think they will throw various obstacles in the path of any requirement that "uncertainties in the licensing of sound recordings for use on the Internet be resolved," especially if it means paying royalties fairly. DRM - Digital Replacement Mechanism Here's what these people are going to be asking you to believe -- The only way to stop all this "piracy" is for you to buy new gear that recognizes the "content protection" and refuses to play anything that doesn't have it. So you're going to have to buy all that music again in the new format. The content they are most concerned with is in your wallet. If you are a musician, you may have another interpretation of the initials "DRM." DRM - Disarm Resourceful Musicians If you haven't already looked at the ongoing battle in these terms, it's time to wake the fuck up and smell the arsenic being fed to you. Not the rock stars in the RAC, it's too late for them anyway, as we can see from the press release. The rest of you, well, you're fucked. Your tunes are not going play on the new stuff. You also won't be able to encode your music to meet the new standards because, hey, if just anyone can do it, then it'll just be a speed bump for the pirates and in a week, the music biz would be right back to where they are now. "...requiring content protection measures in digital transmissions" You won't even be able to post your own songs on your own website. The mp3 file is being criminalized. And so are you. |