By "suggested additions to the playlist" I mean mp3 files for us to review for airplay. If we do add something to the library (which we do with only a smal percentage of the suggested songs) we do indeed use the MP3 file sent by the listener (unless there's something wrong with it).
Seems like you've bought pretty thoroughly into the whole concept that "ownership" of digital audio files is something that can & must remain under the complete control of the copyright owner.
If you're interested in re-examining that whole belief system, Peter Coffee's column in the Feb 3 issue of eWeek is an excellent place to start. He does an excellent job of explaining how far the application of patent & copyright law has come from the original vision of the framers of the Constitution - "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts". That's the exact language in the Constitution.
The use of copyrights & patents to <u>stifle</u> the progress of my particular business (radio) is the polar opposite of their intent - and it really pisses me off.
Nonetheless, we're stuck with crappy, misguided legislation like the DMCA - bought & paid for by the entertainment industry in their attempt to stuff the technological genie of the Internet back in it's profitable little bottle. So we pay their fees & work within the letter of their laws, while we wait for their inevitable failure.
The RIAA, et al would dearly love to time-shift us all back to the day when the only way to get a decent-quality copy of a piece of music (or whatever - obviously this goes far beyond just music) was to walk into a store, or mail-order, an overpriced piece of plastic. Preferably one of the same 30 or 40 pieces of plastic that everybody else is buying (ever so much more profitable that way).
Well, it ain't gonna happen. Make criminals out of an entire youthful generation of music fans? Oh yeah, <u>that'll</u> be great for profits. They say that they "can't compete with free music" - so they need the threat of mass arrests, the infiltration & sabotage of computers & networks, and other tough measures in order to make sure they don't have to.
Coffee is almost always a free commodity in offices, and dirt-cheap at home. Does that stop Starbucks from making a buck? Tap water in 99% of the US is perfectly drinkable - does that stop Evian, Crystal Geyser, etc. from selling plain old water at quite a profit?
The record industry could easily compete with free file trading if the chose to. They could relegate it to a backwater where those interested in obscure "non-commercial" music could swap files to thier hearts content. They could offer fast, easy, reasonably-priced access to nice clean copies of their files, with lots of added-value material and extra features. They could continue to sell their shiny plastic boxes, too, particularly if they were more reasonable priced.
However, they chose not to do any of that. They've chosen instead to try to lock in their market share via legislation. I predict that it will work about exactly as well as the government's efforts to stop drug abuse by "declaring war on it". In other words, a pathetic failure.
Sorry for the rant, but it bugs me when I hear intelligent, articulate people buy into the bullshit logic behind laws like the DMCA.
[ Parent ]