Take someone who owns no music. Ignore the people who own thousands of songs. For the younger generations who don't have music yet...DRM subscription based content is an awesome way to get music. I spend such a small amount of money on music that during my life I'll spend a fraction of what most of you had to spend to build up your collections.
As a Rhapsody user the last few years, and of various subscription services before that, I have to say... it's okay, but nowhere near as good as I like. In addition to some of the other points:
Availability is a major problem. I've frequently seen CDs appear and disappear off of Rhapsody for given artists as (presumably) various licensing agreements expire. (For instance, Orbital, one of my favorite electronic artists, has several classic CDs, such as Orbital II (Brown Album) and In Sides; Rhapsody has had them from time to time, but the CDs disappear and reappear.) This means I wouldn't be able to listen to them.
Janus DRM is incredibly annoying. I wouldn't mind if it set itself so you could play music for one month from the time you last sync'ed, but that's not how it works. Instead, it sets a date one month from when the licenses are last renewed/acquired and always expires then. This means I have to be in front of my computer, ready to sync, on that very day. God forbid I happen to be on a trip, or on the train. No music for me! That happened twice to me and I got so incredibly irritated I swore off Janus.
Then there's the fact that Janus DRM sync is just plain broken on Pocket PCs. It fails after about 15-20 tracks in any given sync session, and you have to disconnect and reconnect the Pocket PC -- and you lost one of your device syncs in the process. This made syncing a huge pain. (I would hope that the dedicated music players are better.)
It's not like I don't like the idea of subscription entirely -- in fact, I maintain my Rhapsody subscription, primarily for discovering new music; I'd call it more of a "customized radio" as opposed to a "rent model". And the quality is actually very good (160kbps WMA on Rhapsody). But I find the portable experience very frustrating and really not worth it. Given that, I'll continue to discover new music on the subscription services, but then I'll buy the CDs so that I don't have to worry about things like license expiration.
I also argue that while us "younger" generational folks doesn't have the money at any given point to build up a music library, a lot of people do over time. I have several hundred CDs now, but it's not like I spent thousands of dollars in one shot; instead, I bought a few every few months, and it piled up. And the best thing is those CDs still work without the above-mentioned limitations.
While I love the idea of subscription services, I'm not sure they can ever be implemented the way I want them. I'm not a great consumer of music, but I buy TONS of ebooks, mostly with ereader DRM. At some point, I could lose the ability to read them, which is very annoying, although not so annoying that I'm going to stop buying them.
Some libraries (none near me, unfortunately) have ebooks, but the selection is not great. I've thought of signing up for a card at the New York Public Library, but I think it's 100.00 a year for non-residents, and the selection of ebooks isn't great. I'd probably pay at least two or three times that amount if there was such a thing as a national library with every book published in the last hundred years (not just books that have currently been released as ebooks) and I could check out any books I wanted (a couple of dozen at a time) with no waitlisting. They could have monthly/annual subscriptions or one-time rental fees, and there could be a system to compensate the authors (and publishers for current books). I don't see any of this happening anytime soon, but I can dream. There are lots of out of print books/series that I'd like to reread. One sad thing is that the rights to a lot of these books are still controlled by publishers who have no intentions of ever printing them again but do not let the authors release them as ebooks.
As far as branding people as criminals, there are lots of gray areas here. Most people (adults anyway) would probably agree that it's not right to illegally download music, mostly because musicians wouldn't get paid (nobody cares to much about the music conglomerates by this point), but these lovely conglomerates are also rapidly buying enough legislation to make any sort of fair use illegal, and I don't think most people think that copying CDs or DVDs for their personal use should be illegal.
Right now it doesn't seem to be possible to balance the rights of creators and consumers, but that's a technology problem that the music industry has no interest in solving as long as they can pass whatever laws they want to protect their own rights. This will probably hurt them in the long term, but I'm not sure they understand that.
I think the music and print industries will be hurt by the DRM battle, as long as they insist on minding their own desired profits and ignore the desires of their customers. Sooner or later, they'll realize they've lost so many customers that they will never get the profit they desire. But that's their problem...
There also seems to be a slight disconnect here, between those who enjoy primarily new and "pop" music and books--and who, therefore, have lots of resources for buying, renting, and even stealing--and those who enjoy older or hard-to-find music and books, and have fewer choices for access. DRM may be an annoyance with new material, but at least that material is available. In many cases, DRM completely shuts out access to older or hard-to-find material, or makes it harder to convert older material to digital formats. (To be fair, though, good old copyright laws accomplish this too, when owners won't release a book, say, for digital publishing.)
Most of my music is classic jazz, and quite a lot of it is impossible to find in MP3 formats, or even on CD. So I spend most of my time burning CDs and MP3s from vinyl albums. Occasionally I find a song I want on iTunes, but in each case, I've re-ripped it into MP3 to play on my player, and to remove DRM from it. I am now doing the same with e-books I buy from Amazon, to remove DRM and convert it to format other than .lit (so I don't have to use MS Reader, but can pick the reader of my choice). I don't share any of it. It's for me.
I think the sooner the print and music industries understand this, embrace it, and show the public they are okay with it, the better off we'll all be. But as long as they insist on fighting my fair use, both industries are due for a bruising.
__________________ Steven Lyle Jordan: Original SF so good, Fox would never put in on the air.
I think this is where the disconnect is. The ultimate goal isn't to be not anti-sharing. (triple negative?) The ultimate goal is to remain a profitable business so you can stay in business.
This is ONLY effective if your business model is viable thru economic, society and/or technology changes.
I bet most people here have never seen a blacksmith in real life!! Yet they had lots of work in the olden days both in Europe and the US.
Technology changed with the arrival of affordable automobiles (in a wide sens: cars, trucks, tractors, etc.) and society changed when people bought them and didn't need horses, therefore it became less and less economically viable to be blacksmith too.
Small printshop economies changed too ever since everybody has been able to print their own invitations, letterhead, etc.
Likewise for the printing labs, because people don't need to develop film rolls anymore and can print their own pictures at home neatly and affordably.
I believe the music industry faces drastic changes in the form of sales drop because of technology changes too.
They want to impose DRMatic technologies to keep controlling what Gerard refers to as not being in a bubble but being "in the wild".
You wouldn't have file sharing today (not as strong anyway) if the music industry was able to closely follow technology changes and forecast/plan those inevitable changes instead of trying to fight it and control it in unacceptalbe ways.
As we say: "The more you clench your fist the more sand runs thru your fingers" and this is of course a great analogy as digital data is even more "fluid" than sand; even tho sand is not a fluid per se, but you get the idea.
Quote:
Your goal might be anti-sharing, and it is a goal that Stalin, Lenin, Castro and Jiabao share with you. But if you think the concept of the internet is going to make any IP holder just let his product go out there for free and they just have to "accept" it, you have another think coming.
(I guess you mean "...thing coming")
Then what you say (bold in the quote) is different from what you mean, especially reading your text further down your post. Let me explain. When you stress the "your [meaning him] goal might be antisharing" this means that you (meaning you Ed) think otherwise; and if you're not anti-sharing it means that you're pro-sharing which your text later on preaches otherwise.
Quote:
Just because my hard earned time goes into creating something that isn't physical but electronic and binary in nature doesn't mean I have to "share" it (give away) just because there is a means to do so anymore than you would want to "share" your car with me and my 2,000,000 closest friends.
Your car can only be at one single place at a time, and can't be used by 2,000,000 people at the same time; whereas digital information VERY EASILY can... and that's the nightmare that keeps the entertainment industry up thru the nights. But that's right, because it CAN doesn't mean that morally it has to be freely given away. But it surely CAN, contrary to physical goods.
Look we can all keep lying to ourselves pretending to trying to be more noble citizens...
but at the end of the day people want to be able to buy/own/share/edit all their files. DRM is not the future despite what some industry want to pretend. iTunes is a flook that is working simply because the hardware is cool, novel an hip.
My model is the healthiest and simplest one. Get out of the courts, get out of the parliament/congress/house, start selling unprotected files as downloads, sue only those who share to make a profit, DRM files only for a short time to make a quick buck then the DRM auto expires.
Micromanaging the Internet WILL fail. They can make money, the IP industry just wants it all, thats all, but THEY CANT HAVE IT ALL at the expense of shutting down the Internet, criminalizing good people and inspiring terror on the net.
These are Fn stupid little electronic files that can be duplicated endlessly for free. Like Jack Nicolson once said:
yeah and one last thing... dont ANYONE here moralize me on not wanting to support artists. I have over 1500$ in Smallville and Star Trek DVDs, and a boatload of CDs. I wanted to be legit.
But you know what? I made a MISTAKE.
Why you ask? I will tell you why.
a) The RIAA MPAA lobbyists have flooded every godamn parliament of the world with lobbyists (paid by us, the fools who buy all their stuff) and that have succeeded in forcing governments all over the planet to criminalize people WHO BOUGHT their DVDs CDs and who DARE rip, edit, convert them. Its CRIMINAL (no less) to circumvent DRM.
Well you know what? A big F YOU to the whole industry.
b) Also I have a mountain of physical discs that litter my home and I would very much prefer to encode them and store them cleanly on my HD and PPC. But is that allowed? Noooooooooo... its CRIMINAL. Again, a big juicy F you to the industry.
I will NEVER ever, EVER! buy one of those super encrypted DRM Blue Ray or HD DVD discs! They can shove them where the Sun don't shine.
If they want even 10 cents from me again, I demand nothing less than a high speed, raw source, tailored encoding, music and video service. Or, in the spirit of compromise, AT THE VERY LEAST, super high quality music and video that is DRMed but only for a few months. when something is new, they have a right to make money and lots of it by offering online before anyone else. And the movie download has to come out online the day the show is broadcast or the day the movie hits the theatres. But of course they are all too stupid and scared to try anything new; and that's also why I will be turning more and more to lesser quality, but free/flexible, downloads. Im not going to pay for old shows and songs anymore. I am not. Period. I will however pay if I feel I am getting something for my money, like higher quality, assured high speed downloads, quickl availabilty and super complete libraries. Do you think I like begging people with sometimes slow connections to send me a file? Do you think I like waiting in line in P2P programs while the program has memory leaks and slows mu Windows down like a virus would? No. I WOULD LOVE TO TURN TO A PARAMOUNT.COM or cable company, or a music company web site and download perfect tracks/movies that I want without any problems, and knowing I can whatever the hell I want with the files as long as I dont make a business of my own out of it. For example, the season premiere of Smallville came out yesterday and I dont have cable TV. Think I am going wait? Hell no. I want to see it NOW. Would I have paid if the TV show had a website and would of sold the unlocked (or temporary DRM) download for 5$ or so? OF COURSE I would have! But instead I had to run around looking for the file online. I found it, and paid ZERO. They missed out on a sale. But they dont want that sale because they know they can coerce people into paying more for far less.
But the industry does not care, never has. They will turn around, strip us of every fair use right (aldeady done), strip us of the Internet fun, fill the courts with suites and relentlessly suck every dime they can no matter what.
I for one am sick of their suits, their anti Internet stance and their ANTI CONSUMER stance. I am done giving my money to those animals.
And I know most of your reading this agree with me! So dont go writing ******** how the Internet is so bad and there are no ways for the artists and distributors to make money.
Like Artie Lange from the Howard Stern show would say:
"Wein!!! We cant control the Internet and model it in our image!"
"Wein!! the governments wont allow us to give the death penalty to downloaders, we have to content ourselves with only ruining their lives!"
I am utterly sick of this debate, and these non stop attacks by the industry to wear everyone down. I will vote for any political party that brings back a balance of power between consumers and IP holders.
1 final thing, I dont feel the same about software. Software should be demoed and never shared online.
Why? Because the tasks they do can often also be done by open source initiatives. Poor people, and people just wanting to trade for fun and friendship, can do so with great open source programs. Also, commercial programs often allow people to make money or be more efficient, thus saving money, so its like a profit thing. So trading software is wrong in my opinion.
And yes, I read through Lestat's text, too. (Slow morning.) I may agree and disagree on a number of things you said, but I think one of the best ideas you've mentioned so far is temporary or limited DRM that expires after the product has been in the market for some period of time (I guess that would be referred to as the "Premeire period").
I am no fan of DRM, either, but a temporary DRM designed to allow a reasonable time for artists (and distributors) to profit from the initial release sounds like a good idea to me. It allows for a fair up-front profit, then it allows the consumer to do whatever.
This sounds consistent with present non-electronic product business models, it's something the public could easily understand and appreciate, and it supports capitalism too. I could get behind that.
__________________ Steven Lyle Jordan: Original SF so good, Fox would never put in on the air.
Linear Mode
