TheAgitator.com
Life, Satire Inch Closer
Thursday, June 24th, 2004Sadly, just one of the stories below is parody. Without clicking, can you guess which one it is?
1) The Beastie Boys install a virus that damages the computers of fans who try to rip MP3s from their new CD.
2) RIAA sues vehicle owners who share radio music with passengers.
3) Orin Hatch wants to criminalize P2P software under a theory of “inducement.” And he wants to do it “for the children.” Says Hatch: “In the film ‘Chitty Chitty Bang Bang,’ the leering ‘Child Catcher’ lured children into danger with false promises of ‘free lollipops. Tragically, some corporations now seem to think that they can legally profit by inducing children to steal; that they can legally lure children and others with false promises of ‘free music.’”
4) Campaign finance reform supporter Michael Moore could be banned from promoting his movie after July 30 because of campaign finance reform.
5) Your “War on Drugs” White House wants to implement a federally-funded, nationwide screening program for mental illness that would identify cases in childhood, then recommend pharmaceutical remedies sold by campaign donors. The program’s Orwellian name: “The New Freedom Initiative.”
I’m going to guess 2 or 4, because I’ve heard vague references to the other three items. OK, I’m going to click now and find out.
I know it’s #2, but nothing of that sort surprises me anymore.
#1 is a bit misleading, as I imagine the label is behind the digital chicanery, not the band itself.
The Beasties have come out and said that they have no control over this, and that it is done with most of the releases on Capitol (their label).
Also, the copy protection will not appear on discs sold in the USA and the UK. So you can rip away.
Neither of the facts above make the decision to include the “protection” in worldwide discs any less stupid. It is easily circumvented, and it just pisses ordinary people off and tempts them to illegally download music rather than buy it.
Long live the Beastie Boys.
Oh, and “The New Freedom Initiative” is a pretty creepy name.
They’re all offensive, except # 1. If you respect property rights–as Libertarians purport to do–then you recognize that such technical additions to legal options are necessary to preserve intellectual property in copyrighted music.
Theft is theft, whether it creates marginal harm or only has aggregate effects, i.e., it’s still wrong to steal a car and it’s also wrong to sneak into a theater.
Roach –
I’d say that #1 is closer to vigilantism than a “techincal addition to legal options.”
Also, ripping files to MP3 isn’t theft. Uploading them to a P2P is. Ripping tracks for play on a computer or Mp3 player fits most reasonable definitions of fair use.
I have to take issue with you, roach. It is legal to rip MP3s as you are allowed to make one digital copy of your CD as a back up. It does not matter what format you save it in. Knowingly damaging someone else’s computer is a crime. I know what you are saying, but I don’t think you can generalize here. There are people who are making legal MP3s from CDs they purchased. I forsee lawsuits coming from this . . .
Jeez Roach, I hope you don’t surpass speed limits while driving.
Janis Ian has a great argument for file sharing:
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
I’ll take door number 1 or 2, possible 4 or even 3, but I have to get back to you after I think about 5 a little longer.
Thanks
I should read before I post . . . I was right about everything I said up to the lawsuit deal. My guess is that what will happen won’t really damage the computer. The term ‘virus’ was used just a bit too loosely in this instance. Plus you have the CD being released in the US and UK sans copy protection so . . . I wonder if the record company will sue anyone for telling people how to circumvent the Autorun function . . . it happened to that poor sap who posted “press the shift key” on his website when the first of these CDs was released last year. Anyone know the disposition of this case?
Ah, Michael Moore. . . what a twisted web you weave.
Thanks for the excellent article, actually.
A parody I wrote way back in “the day”, circa 1999:
Illegal Humming Costs RIAA Artists Millions
It’s #2
Beastie Boys…what complete and utter hypocrites.
Most of you may not like #1, but its not like they are passing a LAW or anything. It is a private busisness decision they made, and we as consumers are free to decide whether or not to buy a record from that label, with full knowledge that trying to rip songs off of the albums might damage your computer.
I’d be concerned if this were not publicly disclosed, but that does not appear to be the case.
It seems to me that partial sales/restrictive sales/licensing agreements are all consistent with property rights principles.
Here’s a riddle: What if I sell you a house only on the condition that you do not sell it to a black person, and that you sell it with the same race-based-restriction to the buyer. Should libertarian principles permit that?
Roach,
I think we’re confusing “legal” and “ethical”. Surely, if Capitol puts a big disclaimer on the OUTSIDE of the cd case in a conspicuous manner, declaring their scheme to the would-be buyer, it is then part of the “contract” that the buyer enters into, and any damage caused by said disclosed viruses are his/her own fault. However, given that ripping songs to mp3 for your own personal use (for example, on a portable MP3 player or for a backup CD) is not illegal in and of itself, and given that the action itself doesn’t cost the Capitol Records a dime, it seems unethical to me, not to mention, a bad business decision. This is bound to just piss more and more people off.
As for your “riddle”, in a libertarian society, if two or more adults enter into a voluntary contract under no durress, that contract should be binding, except where it causes undue harm to other parties or violates their rights. Given that this republic is based on negative rights, nobody then has the government-enforceable “right” to buy a certain house.
Should libertarian principles permit that, you ask? Yes, of course. Should societal morality and ethics permit that? No, they shouldn’t. You need to look at this from the right angle. These types of problems should not be handled by the government, but instead, by society itself, by the people. The people should not permit such contracts to be acceptable, and society does this through various free-market avenues. Just like, in a libertarian society, it would be legal to put up a sign in your restaurant window that said “no whites”, but it would not be ethically acceptable. The problem in our society is that we always ask ourselves, “should the government step in?” But we hardly ever ask, “should we, as a society, allow this? Or should we peacefully force it to stop happening without the strong arm of the state?”
So, step back, and instead of asking whether the government should permit something, ask whether the community should. Libertarian principles surely permit your “riddle”, but should society?
I personally think #4 is a good idea. Not because I agree with the law, mind you, but that if the law is in existence it should be applied equally.
If I’m not allowed to finance political speech, then Miramax/Moore shouldn’t be allowed to either.
Hopefully, this action will get people upset enough to overturn the law.
Answer me this, anybody: does Capitol put disclaimers in a conspicuous location on the outside of the disc case? No, I’m not talking some 2-point fine print on the back down near the copyright info.
Answer me this, anybody: does Capitol put disclaimers in a conspicuous location on the outside of the disc case? No, I’m not talking some 2-point fine print on the back down near the copyright info.
“The New Freedom Initiative.”
Right. The word ‘Freedom’ has lost all meaning lately. I don’t know why it is being packed into all these recent Orwellian schemes and political maneuvers.
It’s getting to a point where offers of ‘Freedom’ mean ‘break out the KY and get ready for some serious ass-fucking’ (as the song goes).
I know that some of you might disagree with that, but that’s a temporary condition.
I got it right, but only because I saw the other stories in the press over recent days.
Stormy Dragon,
If they’re going to ban ads for F-9/11 because it is political in nature and refers to political candidates, then I suppose they’re going to have to ban all ads for, say, every news show on TV, Hannity & Colms, O’Really?, Air America, Hardball, etc. No more ads for them either.
This is nothing more than a partisan attack. As much as I fucking DISPISE the CFRA, and as much as I would like to punch McCain, Feingold and Moore for supporting it, I also realize that this is not just a matter of “equal application of the law”, but actually just a partisan game, because the GOP doesn’t want people to see the movie. They’re taking the law quite literally here, and if they really wanted “equal application”, then, as I said, they would have to ban all ads for anything that mentioned politicians, including the news.
I almost bought the new Velvet Revolver CD yesterday, until I noticed that it said on the cover something to this effect:
“This CD utilizes anti-copying software”
I suspect that it’s similar to the Beastie Boys CD protection. Either way, it was enough for me to pass on purchasing the CD.
Although I’ve long been very anti-file “sharing”, I do like burning copies of my better CDs in order to have a backup. Maybe someday I’ll buy Velvet Revolver used, but if I can’t make a backup I won’t pay full price.
I realize that #2 is the intentional parody, but I think that the worldnetdaily story is bogus. I clicked on the actual White House report and didnt see any mention of this screening initiative, mostly just boilerplate about improving the lives of the disabled through more access to programs, etc.
It’s still frightening any time the government takes any interest in labeling people as mentally defective, but i dont think the massive screening program story is true.
Then again, i only skimmed through the exec summary, so maybe i missed something. . .
Yes, one would think that this would be a turnoff for anyone who likes to back up their CD’s or anyone who likes to use the songs on their MP3 player. But we’ll see what happens. It’s not as if this is going to end file sharing, but it just may put another dent on album sales. I know that I sure as hell wouldn’t buy a CD if it had that disclaimer on the packaging, because I frequently back up my CD’s, rip them for use on my MP3 player, and rip them for use on my work computer. If this is the way that they’re gonna fight the fight, I have bad news for em.
Joker,
What song are you listening to that has those lyrics? Is it from the new Beastie Boy’s album?
roger . . . I made a back up copy of my Velvet Revolver CD. It’s not hard to get around. If you can operate a computer, you can do it.
Evan Williams, there is a specific provision that exempts news programs. Ergo, Hardball = legal, Moore = not legal. Read this story if you still have questions:
http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx
Beltway Traffic Jam
Now that school’s out for summer, traffic is supposed to be noticably dimished. I haven’t yet noticed. The Thursday linkfest: Smash had a good time at a Berkeley peace rally. Kevin McGehee, who still doesn’t have any pictures of Mary …
Danno -
I had a feeling it wasn’t that hard to get around. For me, it’s mainly just the principle that I shouldn’t have to circumvent some bogus CD protection.
Also a factor in my not purchasing Velvet Revolver is that I’m generally nervous about purchasing music recommended on The Agitator, since it tends to be a little, well, scary.
This, of course, coming from a guy who still goes to Tesla concerts and thinks Great White is obscenely underrated…
roger . . . Tesla was hot back in the day. And Great White is just . . . hot. Sorry.
Don’t be afraid of Velvet Revolver. It’s pretty much straight forward KA rock-n-roll. You’ll like it if you like the bands you mentioned.
Joe, it’s from the Eminem Album (The Eminem Show)
Song title: Square Dance.
Here is a link to the lyrics:
http://ourlyrics.host.sk/lyrics/eminem/5-tes-eminem-04-square_dance.php
note 1. Don’t look to find some high level inspirational stuff there – it’s just rap.
note 2. Yeah, I bought the CD, I didn’t download it from P2P
;-)
>This is nothing more than a partisan attack.
I’d thank you not to put words in my mouth by assuming I only want F9-11 ads banned. That’s not the case.
I want the law applied to every media outlet. Heck, I’d like to see it applied to straight news. Why should Time Warner get spout its views because it owns CNN? Why should GE get to spout its views because it owns NBC news?
They wanted to ban express advocacy, fine, then let’s do it. Only we do it for _everyone_. We don’t pick out certain groups and say, “Well, you get special rights because you’re ‘media’.”
Evan Williams;
Why must there be a dichotomy between legality, morality, and ethics?
Should legality lead or follow morality and ethics?
================
As an aside, regarding the copying issue at hand, the music I would want to copy is out of date, out of print, and unavailable from anyone other than a devotee.
Where can I download a copy of Josh White’s “Baby, If You Talk In Your Sleep, Good God Don’t You Mention My Name”? The 78 rpm record I had, melted.
Stormy Dragon,
If your goal is to show how convoluted and imbicile the CFRA is, then I support your efforts. But the story at hand was about a call for F-9/11 to be banned, without mention of any of the other sources you list. So, while YOU may support an all-or-nothing approach, the folks in congress (and the GOP/Dems) don’t seem to agree. That was my point.
Mike Farrell:
You ask, Why must there be a dichotomy between legality, morality, and ethics? Should legality lead or follow morality and ethics?
This is a yes and no answer. Yes, legality follows morality, but the extent to which “morality” is legally enforced is limited, in the case of a consitutional republic like ours, by the constitution. That document posits that man is endowed a set of inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness (and, property). The role of GOVERNMENT in this constitutional republic is to protect the negative rights of its citizens. However, its powers of enforcement are limited to those inalienable rights. In other words, it was “morality” that brought us the idea of those inalienable rights, and therefore, “legality” follows morality. But the founders also sought to protect the people from the tyranny of the majority, i.e., legally enforced subjective morality. This is why they sought to restrict the power of the state to enforcement of those inalienable rights. They did not want, for example, 50.1% of the people to say “it is morally wrong for women to show their ankles, therefore, we shall make it illegal for everyone”. Time and time again, they warned against the evils of mob rule, or “democracy”. They did not want the majority to be able to force their morality upon the minority at the point of a gun. And thus, we have the constitution and bill of rights. It’s just a shame that we have bastardized them both, while this country shifts from federalism to statism.
Secondly, I’ve got no idea where you might find that record. But regardless, you should invest in a rather inexpensive device called “Ripflash”. It takes any audio input and converts it to MP3, and it’s small, so you can, for example, hook it up to the output on your turntable, and back up all your albums.
VR is basically GnR at their best without Axl.
The entertainment & recording industry went through this same flap over 20 yeras ago when people started recording their vinyl onto cassette tape. I do not recall the name or cite of the Supreme Court case, but the Court ruled that consumers have the right to make back up copies of albums which they purchased. In my opinion that is a binding precedent. The only difference between then and now is that our music is now available in digital format instead of analog. I have no sympathy with multi-millionaire artists, and multi-billion dollar media companies crying poor mouth every time they lose a nickle.
For example, I saw Garth Brooks on the Tonight Show make a statement to the effect that not even his grandchildren could ever spend all the money he has made. A couple of weeks later he was in the news crying about how file sharing was taking money out of his pocket. Make up your minds you big cry babies!
Cheaper Digital Cameras have great information on a wide range of cheap digital cameras available online
http://www.cheaper-digital-cameras.uk.com
Cheaper Digital Cameras have great information on a wide range of cheap digital cameras available online
http://www.cheaper-digital-cameras.uk.com