It's hard for me to believe that anyone who buys DRMed music doesn't use one of many converters available to get it to regular MP3s or burn them to CDs as backup so they can be re-ripped. A pain to be sure, but it's always been the smart thing to do.
As Ed implied, you're way overestimating the average public, who'll click, buy a song, download it to their iPod, and enjoy. Moreover, even I don't do this for the few protected iTunes songs I have. I don't want to experience quality loss from the already-mediocre 128kbps encodings the tracks have. Given iTunes' position in the market, I think it's a pretty safe bet the tracks are okay for now.
(Note that I don't buy songs from iTunes unless they're not available elsewhere. I usually buy Amazon MP3 now, and before that, used to buy CDs.)
Quote:
DRM is evil and has been from day one. It's been discredited and is a marketing negative, and eventually all DRM services will cease operating.
You're still too optimistic about the knowledge level of the end-user. Most iTunes users don't know, and don't care, about DRM. Part of the reason is because they only use iPods (so the Apple-device restriction isn't noticed), and perhaps because FairPlay is pretty lax and behind-the-scenes apart from that one limitation.
Quote:
What should happen, is that legit services should offer their users tools to convert all their DRMed music to non-DRM, including Microsoft and Apple, and the RIAA should bless such a movement. Rather than pinning their hopes on selling DRM buyers their music in non-DRMed form (the only reason such tools are not yet authorized).
I doubt Microsoft or Apple have the right to offer such a tool in their contract. In Apple's case, it's moot; three of the four major record labels refuse to offer non-DRM to Apple in hopes of unseating them as the dominant music store. (And, if you'll notice, it hasn't worked yet, further underscoring what little the average public knows, or cares, about DRM's inherent evilness.)
Quote:
I'd put my money on Microsoft embracing such a move before the far more fascist, customer-control and developer-control obsessed Apple.
Do note that Apple not only offered non-DRM AACs long before Microsoft did, but they also offered an upgrade feature to upgrade all DRMed tracks for which Apple has a non-DRM license ("iTunes Plus") for a reduced fee. It's built into iTunes and is a one-click process.
One of my fears is that the labels only allow DRM-free music as competition to iTunes. If and when they manage to take down iTunes, I wouldn't be surprised if they let their DRM-free contracts expire with Amazon, Rhapsody, MSN, etc. The labels really couldn't give a damn about what any of us want.
Why should they? They're a business, and their job is to make as much money as they can.
There are only two reasons to give a damn about customers:
Doing so might actually earn you more business
You're a "good" business that believes in making a "fair" profit, not charging what the market will bear. This leaves out oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies, Wall Street and companies making goods in third-world countries that exploit workers and sell us lead-painted toys or tainted food.
I'll buy albums online when they are DRM-Free and at least 256 kbps AAC files.
Amazon MP3 offers 256kbps VBR LAME-encoded MP3s. The quality is excellent and is on par with 256kbps AAC (which is what Apple uses on iTunes Plus). I've basically switched to Amazon MP3 for everything apart from classical music, which I'll still buy on CD.
Why should they? They're a business, and their job is to make as much money as they can.
Well, okay, I should rephrase things. "I expect record companies to let their non-DRM contracts expire if and when they can wield it to take down iTunes." Happy?
And there is no reason for us to feel sorry for people who aren't resourceful enough to solve this conundrum on their own. They've got the Internet and Google, and that's all you need to learn just about anything.
Besides what Ed and Janak said about the general technical expertise of the general population, I find this attitude a bit repugnant.
Should mechanics be able to rip people off who don't know enough about the inner workings of their cars? Is it OK to take advantage of people "dumber" than you because they aren't smart enough to catch on? Is it OK for me to be resourceful, use Google to find out how to bump a lock, then go steal from your house?
This is the one analogy that has always bothered me whenever piracy is brought up. No matter how you feel on the issue, when you walk into a supermarket and steal something you are physically removing something from the store and therefore removing money from their pockets. This isn't the same as making a digital copy of something where the original stays there.
Morally wrong? Yes. On the same level as stealing physical products? No.
It's not quite on the same level, I agree, but it's still stealing. You've taken something that doesn't belong to you without compensating the owner for it. That's stealing.
Sure, some people rationalize it by saying "I wouldn't have bought that anyway." That's basically saying it's OK to steal something you didn't want badly.
It's not quite on the same level, I agree, but it's still stealing. You've taken something that doesn't belong to you without compensating the owner for it. That's stealing.
I agree, it is still stealing. I was just stating that I dislike the analogy that everyone uses when they compare it to a physical product. It is no different whenever we try to compare a Windows Mobile device to the iPhone or space travel to underwater adventures. Sure there are similarities to stealing physical products and digital products but they are not on the same level at all. It is just a silly pet peeve of mine
I guess a better way of explaining it would be like so; Going into Wal-Mart and stealing physical copies of all of the albums you will now lose because you purchased the DRM copy isn't the same as breaking the DRM on music that you already purchased.
It would be one thing if Wal-Mart had a little button next to the album that said "rent this track now," but they no not. All of these DRM stores use the termonology to make it sound like the music you purchase belongs to you and not the other way around so when things like this happens it greatly annoys money spending consumers to not want to buy these products anymore. Some people could even argue that stuff like this turns would be paying customers into pirates because they don't understand how DRM and non-DRM works and all they know is that if they purchsaed music from one company and lost the rights to play it and the same thing might happen if they go to Amazon or somewhere else (even though it wouldn't happen with Amazon's non-DRM selection, but they don't know or understand the technology to know this.)
Then you also have to wonderer, if Wal-Mart's solution to this problem is to have their users burn their music to CD's and then re-rip it, why wouldn't users just strip the DRM from the tracks and cut out the middle-man-CD process? This is essentially the same thing minus spending a ton of money on CDs.
This is one of those situations where no matter what you do as a consumer, you get screwed. You either repurchase your Wal-Mart collection in non-DRM fashion or you break the law and sit and a corner and feel bad about yourself.
The only people that win in this situation are the music companies. Even Wal-Mart loses in this situation because they have to screw over all of their existing customers. I don't really believe there is a right answer to fix this problem besides dropping DRM all together. DRM is bad and the cons will always outweigh the pros and the only people DRM prevents from using products are your customers that actually wanted to give you money. DRM does not stop nor effect pirates and in a lot of cases is cracked before the final products hits the store shelves.
I guess a better way of explaining it would be like so; Going into Wal-Mart and stealing physical copies of all of the albums you will now lose because you purchased the DRM copy isn't the same as breaking the DRM on music that you already purchased.
True, and I agree with what Ed said in the first post. I wouldn't blame anybody for downloading songs from a P2P network that they lost due to a DRM failure. The people played by the rules, but WalMart changed those rules in the middle of the game.
Then they made it worse by giving people less than two weeks to fix things. If somebody is on vacation for a couple of weeks, they're screwed. Companies should have to give at least three months notice before doing something like this.
Then they made it worse by giving people less than two weeks to fix things. If somebody is on vacation for a couple of weeks, they're screwed. Companies should have to give at least three months notice before doing something like this.
Heck I would say even longer. I usually have a 10-14 hour workday on top of any extra activity things such as contributing here. If I was a Wal-Mart customer I would be SOL since there is no way I would have the time with my current work schedule to go through my albums and burn them all to CD.
What about all the people that have changed email addresses since buying those albums as well? How are they going to be notified? Hopefully this doesn't turn out all doom and gloom like we're predicting and Wal-Mart comes out with a better solution then scratching their collective heads.
You missed one point. Record company sends lawyers to sue you for copyright violation because they have your confession in writing.
My philosophy on P2P is still the same. Go ahead and steal the music if you want, but don't try to rationalize it and don't put in writing what you've done.
Rationalization has nothing to do with my arguments. Of course this comment may not be directly related to mine... but the way you've been somewhat structured in your multiple responses, keeping them quite separate, makes it seem as though it is. I don't want to steal music. I don't steal music. If I can possibly find a purchasable album I want to have in a shop or online, I buy it. Same goes for my teenage stepdaughter, whose ethics in this area are rather strikingly clear; she grew up the daughter of a performing musician, surrounded by performing musicians, and understands that artists need to eat. Same for me. My clients work bloody hard to scrape usually very meager incomes form the gigs they're able to find, teaching and working day jobs to make ends meet.
I respect musicians' efforts far more deeply than the 'average' recorded music consumer, not in small part owing to the fact that without musicians, I would have zero income myself. I'm a violinmaker, specialized primarily (though not exclusively) in repairs and setups of doublebasses. Without bassists, I'd have to go back to my father's business of construction, and I do have the skills to do rather well there... but it's not what I want to do. I could also be a bike mechanic or a welder or machinist or a baker or a host of other things, as my working life has been rather varied and I tend to do a good job wherever I work. Same could be said for a log of my clients. But as with me, they would prefer to make their livings from their craft, music in their case. And I support them in this, buying music which interests me, and (when fatherhood allows) going out to hear them performing.
As for your specific admonition - that putting your intentions in writing somehow makes you vulnerable... no. Did I say, for instance, that when sending a postal money order (the financial instrument mentioned, if you recall) that people should include their actual name or actual location? A postal money order is unique in that it a) can be purchased with cash, without presenting identification, and so cannot be traced to the sender, and b) is 'as good as' cash at any financial institution. Further, one can use anonymous means in writing and sending the note to go with the money order, explaining the reason for the payment and even the specific album in question, without getting the RIAA any closer to the sender than the city of origin. Barring fingerprinting or other forensic evidence, which it's highly unlikely the RIAA is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per case pursuing, there's just no way this is admissible in any court. The RIAA's cases are pathetically cobbled together at best anyway, relying almost entirely on fear to resolve them out of court. Evidence really doesn't much enter into it.
But of course anyone is welcome to continue quaking in fear of the MegaCorp. I've been recommending for years in discussion forums that people just outright avoid any and all DRM-protected content from these companies. I was deeply shocked to find, once, that a favourite band's label (which I will not here name, as they have since reversed this policy and now openly promote sharing of tracks as a means of promotion of their artists) had used an embedded, stealth-installed player on a CD so that it could not be ripped at better than 56kbps. Of course my immediate reaction was to spend several hours searching for a way to crack this restriction, as I'd no intention of listening to the CD at all; I wanted a 320kbps rip to MP3 for my PPC, where I listened to music generally. Solution was eventually found, CD ripped, customer no longer quite so angry. Since then I have been very careful to search the packaging of any CD for mention of any such DRM nonsense. If I am paying for an album, I want to listen to that album, on my terms. What business is it of the publishers to choose on what device or at what level of quality I do so?
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned P2P files being of generally low quality. For the limited use I have made of such services, in cases where availability of physical media simply wasn't an option, my experience says otherwise. Sure, there is the odd horrid rip. But generally speaking, it seems audiophile quality of darn near is the rule. Perhaps this low-quality thing is more applicable in cases with pop music? Haven't really tried to find any of that, so couldn't say. Old classical recordings for the most part, stuff long out of print. The odd ancient jazz album, like some tasty Coltrane or Brubeck no longer issued, though I have it on poppy old vinyl. There, it's unusual to find any single track less than 40MB of data, with albums measuring in the many hundreds of megabytes to handle every possible nuance. That's when I am very grateful for the resource P2P networking provides, and of course gladly share more than my bandwidth share.
So the RIAA can bite me. I neither steal their stuff nor promote such activities. I am merely advocating for pushing them to wake up and treat their customers with some respect. Perhaps if they do, they might find it in their hearts to offer a little of the same to their artists... nah, that's not likely.
Business Is Business
Linear Mode
