Why You Should Never Buy DRM Content [Archive]

Ed Hansberry

09-26-2006, 08:00 PM

<a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3626">http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3626</a> "By way of Cory Doctorow, comes a pointer to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's take on Microsoft's new Zune: a brand that has broken ranks with the Redmond-based company's previous digital rights management (DRM) strategy that attempted to establish an ecosystem of compatibility (under the name "PlaysForSure") between content merchants (ie: AOL, Yahoo, Amazon, etc.), the copy protection on the content they sold, and the software and devices that could play that content." If you look at <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/zune/docs/ZuneFS.doc">footnote 4 in Microsoft's press release</a> you'll find "Zune software can import audio files in unprotected WMA, MP3, AAC; photos in JPEG; and videos in WMV, MPEG-4, H.264." Now, maybe it can redownload content from Napster, Rhapsody, Cinemanow and other DRM suppliers, it just can't import it, but I really doubt this is the case. For whatever reason, Microsoft is charting a new course with the Zune that will leave any of you with DRM protected content out in the cold. This is why I have purchased less than $50 of protected content over the years and 100% of it has been burned to a CD and ripped back with no protection. Those of you that left the "Protect Content" box in WMP9 or WMP10 checked and didn't realize you were protecting your own content may have to rerip all of your CDs to play on the Zune. Personally, I am still looking forward to the Zune. I have no purchased protected content and don't really plan to, but it would be nice if it could play Tivo2Go files, which are protected as they are transferred across my network.

jlp

09-26-2006, 10:18 PM

If you didn't know DRM stands* for Dramatic (Dreadful) Restrictions Madness :evil: .

Says it all :twisted:.

I have NEVER and will NEVER buy DRM protected files, even when my local McDo had a promotion with every meal; I just trashed the tickets.

I once tried to register at a DRM infected site, but reading the fine print you see it all is an unacceptable mess: so many restrictions, every file has their own rights and set of rules as to which restrictions you will face.

I don't have time to mess with all this CRAP (Content Restriction & Alienating Protection).

You get infected with tons of viruses (virii), spam and other obnoxious stuff when you get some kind of CDs, register on DRM infected sites, etc.

0X

* unofficially :D

Brad Adrian

09-26-2006, 10:24 PM

...and didn't realize you were protecting your own content...
...and protecting it from yourself, I might add!

Maybe we don't want to start the whole DRM rants all over again, but I sure am stymied by the fact that the best minds in companies like Sony and Microsoft haven't been able to come up with schemes that actually work for both sides of the transaction. I agree that sharing files in ways that don't reimburse the legal rights owner is wrong, but there HAS to be a better way than what's been available so far -- and ESPECIALLY a system that isn't outdated, abandoned or otherwise changed a few months or even years after its introduction.

While I understand (I think) where Microsoft is coming from on this, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. It's my belief that customers will accept systems that are inferior in many ways, as long as that system WORKS. iTunes doesn't have the breadth of selection of other stores, but it works (especially with the iPOD) and it works and it works.

Brad Adrian

09-26-2006, 10:30 PM

Zidane

09-26-2006, 11:08 PM

For me, personally, it's not the sharing. I've never even passed CDs around with anyone other than my sister (and it usually wasn't willingly with her, either).

I don't buy DRMed content because I believe it takes away the customer's agency. It's like buying a car. Most of us take out a loan, so the car really belongs to the bank (until the loan is paid off, that is). So, even though we don't own it, the bank doesn't get to dictate what we can and can't do with the car. DRM is akin to the bank saying: "You can have this car, but you can only drive it on Maple Avenue with no passengers".

We need to have a right to choose for ourselves. Most people aren't going to be sharing their music with every Tom, Dick and Harry on the web, and the ones who are will find a way to do it anyway. Just let us honest people have the ability to copy it to and from whatever devices we use.

jlp

09-26-2006, 11:26 PM

...I have NEVER and will NEVER buy DRM protected files...
I'm just curious, and I pose this question to every/any- body:

Do you not purchase DRM- or otherwise- protected files because the protection systems keep you from using the files yourself the way you want to, or are you basically opposed to protection because you feel you should be allowed to share files in any way you see fit?

I'm opposed to any form of technology restriction (defective/limited by design) that stops me from listening to my own legally aquired music on any music playing device I own and will own in the future.

I can play any CDDA* on any CD, DVD drive and probably any subsequent technology invented in the future based on it (HD-DVD, etc.).

However music is the content and CDDAs are the container.

I want to freely use the content that has to be easily and freely separateable from the container. MP3 players come to mind; PPCs, PMPs etc. as well.

They use different technology than the almost half a century old optical technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_disc) used in CDDAs.

Whatever the support, the content has to be freely and easily transferable to any current and future support one uses or will use.

DRMatic is the technology enemy to it.

*that was rather 100% true up until DRM started to infest/infect audio CDs as well.

Cattle-Dog

09-26-2006, 11:34 PM

This is why I always buy my music in high bit rate from the home of водочка. Otherwise, unless you go to great lengths, you WILL be re-buying it when your PC/iPod/Zune dies or you replace it. Don't think next year, think 4, 5, or even more years down the road.

x51vuser

09-27-2006, 12:03 AM

well nobody buys drm here ... how come ipods are so successful ?

Ed Hansberry

09-27-2006, 12:17 AM

well nobody buys drm here ... how come ipods are so successful ?

I need to find the article on this, but the amount of ipod owners that actually purchased music from itunes was 15-20%. most just rip their CDs.

Janak Parekh

09-27-2006, 12:24 AM

Ed, you're talking about this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5350258.stm). I do buy some iTunes DRM stuff -- mostly international stuff that's expensive to import or CDs that are only available in copy-controlled form at music stores -- but, like others, the majority of my stuff is ripped.

(Of course, 17% is a solid number for an online music store at this juncture.)

--janak

Marcel_Proust

09-27-2006, 12:25 AM

well nobody buys drm here ... how come ipods are so successful ?

For one, I don't think the average consumer is on these boards. This is more for prosumers? That's why'll you see more creative etc. owners here.
I avoid DRM, but at least Apple drm is fairly consistent. By not making Zune compatible with its own partner's drm, MS is shooting itself in the foot big time. Instead of improving those stores, it's threatening them, and is anyone going to trust MS DRM now with all the zig zags they take.
It's too bad the European decision to make drm cross compatible didn't quite go through.
I do buy drm from Mobipocket. They're easy to activate and cross platform. But still if they go out of business, what happens? But they're still the best out there for books.
Microsoft Reader drm though is a total disaster.

09-27-2006, 12:26 AM

.

Whatever the support, the content has to be freely and easily transferable to any current and future support one uses or will use.
DRMatic is the technology enemy to it.

I agree. I don´t buy copy protected cd´s, even if i like them. And i always tell the sales guy that i would love to buy that cd but i´m not since i won´t be able to rip to mp3 and listen to it in my DAP... wich does not support DRM at all, and i couldn´t care less.

I´m not surprised about iPOD´s success. They are great DAP´s. It´s iTunes the thing that sucks.... but hey, here in Chile you can´t buy iTunes anyway...

I´ve bought a few tracks from emusic ... not a really great selection of music but they are just plain, not copy protected mp3´s, good for every DAP.

SO COMMON PEOPLE, SHOW YOU ARE ANGRY, DO NOT BUY DRM PROTECTED CONTENT AGAIN!! Remember that all your iTunes songs won´t play in your Zune or whatever other DAP, so go and buy a regular cd, rip it to mp3 (and you can do it at a higher bitrate for better results than iTunes) and then listen to it in your iPOD, without having to worry about the fact that you will not be able to listen to your music on another DAP.

BugDude10

09-27-2006, 12:33 AM

The reason most people don't care about DRM restrictions, I think, is that most people are buying their players to play their own music from their own collections, rather than buying players to start loading them up with DRMed music purchases. What I worry about, for those people, is what happens when, after playing their own collections to death, they start looking for music to purchase online without knowing and understanding how DRM will screw them in the future (when they get a new PC and/or new player).

I understand the providers wanting DRM to make piracy more difficult; what I am furious about is their willingness to screw with their legitimate customers to do so. That's why I've never purchased any DRMed music (and very few DRMed e-books).

msafi

09-27-2006, 01:12 AM

It's hard for me to believe that people still purchase music. Yeah, I think my wife's done it once or twice from the iTunes store, but if companies get to mess around in all their standardization de-standardization show, don't I the consumer get to play around, too? I think it's fair. I download music from BitTorrent websites. I don't even download by the song anymore, I download by the album. From my experience, this has been quick, reliable, cheap and very convenient.

My experience with DRM has exclusively been with Audible.com. I give them 15USD per month and they give me a book which I can play on my iPod or Pocket PC. I sometimes convert those to clean MP3s, too, and share them with my friends, who enjoy them and decide to sign up with Audible to purchase more books.

T-Will

09-27-2006, 01:31 AM

I rip my own CD's so I don't have to deal with DRM and never will. I feel sorry when I hear the DRM nightmares people go through.

Also, slightly off-topic, but I always thought Apple kept track of the songs you buy through the ITMS, but I guess that's not true. So every time you buy a song you're supposed to do a manual backup, how ridiculous is that. How difficult would it be for them to have a little database of all the music you've purchased in case your HD dies?

Gerard

09-27-2006, 01:47 AM

My girl listens to tunes on a CD player or on her PPC so far. But she's almost 13, and is feeling the pressure or whatever it is for iPod usership... and so by brother caved in and has one of the latest 4GB models on order for her. I didn't argue, though tempted, but no, she's known for over a year about DRM and how insanely restrictive it can be, so she'll not be purchasing any iTunes nor any other DRM'd content for the iPod.

In the old days folks used to buy printed music books when they wanted music in their homes. These music book collections, and quite a few of them were very large, would last so long as there wasn't a house fire or a flood, or until someone spilled coffee all over part of it. Well, in the latter case one could probably still use the music... Then along came wax rolls, then bakelite discs, then vinyl, then tapes, and now we have CDs. All these media, before DRM that is, shared the same basic tenet as the original printed music books which folks used to use to play back on a piano; they lasted so long as one took good care of them.

CDs have now been proven to have rather limited lifespans, quite contrary to the early sales pitches (which had many collectors turfing out vinyl in favour of the 'better' optical discs) which said a CD could last hundreds of years, they tend to start showing signs of 'CD rot' in from 10 to 15 years. That's rather sad, considering that I have vinyl from the late 1950's which still sounds warm and nice.

So it seems to me reasonable, and understandably popular, that people want to backup and otherwise make more permanent their music purchased in CD format. It's just an extension of the expectation brought about by previous technologies. Why should we pay premium prices for music, only to have it die and become unusable after a too-short period? And since MP3 and other formats are easily used for this purpose (albeit with mixed results, depending on how it's done) it's not surprising to have the MP3 be the single most recognised digital file format today. Every elementary school kid knows what an MP3 is. How many know DOC or JPEG?

With DRM'd CDs, the music industry (even some of the small independent labels, shockingly) has sought to label their customers as potential thieves. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars (a conservative estimate) developing technologies specifically to interfere with the rights of legitimate purchasers of audio (and now video and text) content to preserve and use that content freely, for a reasonably long part of their lives. If I buy a recording, I rather expect to be able to grow old and still listen to it once in a while, right up until I die. Why shouldn't I expect that?

DRM flies in the face of basic expectations. Reasonably expecations. Fair expectations. These companies should be ashamed. Instead, they fight tooth and nail to increase their profit margins. And instead, of course, and obviously to almost everyone but themselves, they are in a losing battle. Their actions are triggering a wave of new anti-corporate awareness and opinion among consumers worldwide, and sites which allow sharing of non-DRM'd content are booming as proof this is happening. Call someone a thief long enough and sooner or later they just might become one, if only for the sake of flipping the bird in response.

I have no sympathy for the DRM merchants. They'll thrive or die out, depending on how well they fool the 'average consumer,' but they'll not fool everyone, and their constant moaning about losses to piracy online will be a self-fulfilling prophecy though there's little truth to it yet - they haven't really begun to see just how much music can be easily swapped online.

Personally, I've purchased less than $50 of DRM'd content. One CD, from a local band (friends of mine, strangely enough) when there was no choice (they've since dumped their label for related reasons and are self-distributing and enormously successful), and a few ebooks back in 2000 from Fictionwise. I've long since ripped that CD to 320kbps MP3 files, and given the CD to someone else, and also ripped te LIT ebooks to plain vanilla HTML so it'll always be readable content on any PDA. I prefer ubook to Microsoft Reader, of course, so why should I be forced to use Reader? If the Zune is offering more of the same with all this DRM mumbo jumbo, it can go jump. Not interesting. As for my kid's new iPod... it'll get homemade MP3s and nothing else. It'll be a pretty frosty day in heck before I install iTunes software on any of our computers.

SteveHoward999

09-27-2006, 02:59 AM

well nobody buys drm here ... how come ipods are so successful ?

I have almost 5000 tunes on my iPod. Every one came from my own CD collection. Music downloads are an even bigger rip-off than CD sales!

Darius Wey

09-27-2006, 03:59 AM

Do you not purchase DRM- or otherwise- protected files because the protection systems keep you from using the files yourself the way you want to, or are you basically opposed to protection because you feel you should be allowed to share files in any way you see fit?

I really have zero issues purchasing DRM-protected music. It needs to satisfy two criteria, though - (a) it's not completely restrictive (Apple has a reasonable system going), and (b) it works (Janus doesn't; both Janak and I have experienced the frustration that comes with it).

In my opinion, the best DRM is no DRM. Buying a CD offers the most amount of freedom. But where CDs are hard to acquire (no stock, hard to import, etc.), I think the DRM options out there are a reasonable alternative.

Janak Parekh

09-27-2006, 04:29 AM

Also, slightly off-topic, but I always thought Apple kept track of the songs you buy through the ITMS, but I guess that's not true. So every time you buy a song you're supposed to do a manual backup, how ridiculous is that. How difficult would it be for them to have a little database of all the music you've purchased in case your HD dies?
Actually, they do have a database, and apparently there's an unwritten policy that if you beg, they will likely allow you to download all the tracks again - once. (Fortunately, iTunes 7 does have an integrated backup tool to minimize the chance of loss.)

--janak

CorporateJay

09-27-2006, 05:34 AM

2 years ago I decided that my tastes change by the second so I stopped buying music and started renting. I was spending over $20 a month purchasing several albums just to hear a few songs.

Without DRM, renting music would not be allowed. If I did purchase a new CD, I would probably avoid DRM protection.

Now, if they can create a client to stream or download music from the subscription service directly to your mobile...

Vampire Lestat

09-27-2006, 07:42 AM

DRM is anti-Internet, anti-efficiency, anti-fun, anti-interroperability.
Essentially, you pay to have less, and to be controlled.

When you buy CD DVDs, you are accused of being a criminal if you rip them. You can't win.

The Internet has revolutionized humanity; its culture of sharing knowledge, little vibrations of air (music) and little vibrations of light (movies) must be protected. Real crime is not the sharing of the latter; real crime is when people stab, kill, rape, steal physical things, don't pay their taxes, exploit their labour, support genocide, etc.

The RIAA, MPAA, book companies, etc must adapt their business models to accomodate the Internet and not the other way around.

DRM is anti-sharing, thus anti-Internet, thus anti-humanity.

End of story.

Ed Hansberry

09-27-2006, 01:27 PM

The Internet has revolutionized humanity; its culture of sharing knowledge, little vibrations of air (music) and little vibrations of light (movies) must be protected. Real crime is not the sharing of the latter; real crime is when people stab, kill, rape, steal physical things, don't pay their taxes, exploit their labour, support genocide, etc.
no, they are both crimes. The former (massive "sharing") is a civil crime as opposed to a violent crime. how can you distinguish tex evasion, which is essentially theft, from stealing the intellectual property of others?

jgrnt1

09-27-2006, 02:16 PM

A few years ago (when I got my first PPC), I ripped all my CD's to mp3's. In the last couple of years, I've purchased about 40 songs in protected WMA format. Somewhere along the way, I lost the licenses to the oldest 20 or so songs. Since I purchase from several sites, I don't even know which site to ask for another license, though Wal-Mart did let me redownload a few that I remembered purchasing from them. I now have about 15 songs which I "purchased," but cannot play. Even with the songs I have licenses for, I can't just copy them to a CF card and pop them into my PPC, I have to transfer them with the licenses.

I recently installed a Sonos Digital Music System (http://www.sonos.com/index.htm) in my house. I have copied all of my music to a Maxtor NAS, so the Sonos has access to it even when no PC's are running. I'm reripping all of my CD's to FLAC, something which wasn't practical until the cost of storage came down. The issue I have is with the WMA files. I want them to be mine forever, since I "bought" them. If I don't keep track of all the licenses, though, I'm screwed. I know there are DRM stripping tools out there, but you still need the licenses to use the tools. I guess the smart thing to do would be to buy the songs and strip the DRM right away, but that potentially puts you on the wrong side of the law.

I have the same problem with ebooks, but magnified because I have purchased a bunch of them. I have to depend on Mobipocket staying alive and also have to redownload all my ebooks when I change devices. Since I have purchased from more than one source, I have the same issue as with my purchased music files. Rather than organizing my music and ebooks in a logical fashion, I guess I will have to stick them in folders organized by store -- Wal-Mart, Napster, Mobipocket, Fictionwize, Amazon, etc.

jutae

09-27-2006, 03:38 PM

Um you people need tunebite...

Tierran

09-27-2006, 03:54 PM

As someone who never owned much music, I find that people who own hundreds of records, tapes & CDs don't appreciate the benefits that DRM can offer. DRMed music should appeal to people like me and when you take a moment to think about it, its easier to understand why.

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.

In return, I get to 'rent' music and get an array of options I'd never had before. For me, DRM music isn't about buying music. Its about buying a service to let me listen to whatever I want.

Gerard

09-27-2006, 05:13 PM

... buy the songs and strip the DRM right away, but that potentially puts you on the wrong side of the law.

If you live in the US, 'potentially' is inaccurate. Circumvention of DRM encryption is in direct violation of the DMCA, and could land you a fine, or 'potentially' some jail time if the RIAA decides to push that hard. If caught, they'll extort hundreds or even thousands of dollars per song in a 'settlement.' They've already succeeded in this thousands of times. Can you prove you haven't shared your ripped files?

For me, DRM music isn't about buying music. Its about buying a service to let me listen to whatever I want.

... until, as pointed out by others with real-world pain to show for their rental fee, you a) have a hard drive die. b) lose your rental records, c) change to a newer device which no longer supports the format you rented.... etcetera. Ipods die. So do PCs, Macs, whatever. So your lifetime rental of music is only for the lifetime of your hardware.

With the average hard drive dying in under 10 years, and DRM schemes and compressed music formats changing all the time, comparing vinyl or CD collecting to the convenience and economy of what the DRM pushers are selling is a false comparison. The major labels aren't offering a decent alternative (such as the $5 CD we were promised in the early '80's, which never materialized), so users are providing their own alternative; file sharing. If and when the mega-corps wake up, they'll get on the case and start trusting their customers and just sell the dang tunes.

Tierran

09-27-2006, 06:12 PM

a) have a hard drive die.

Why does this matter? I don't store the music locally. I just download it when I want to put it on an MP3 player and then delete it eventually.

b) lose your rental records

I would say that this statement shows a bit of ignorance of what JANUS (rental) music actually is ;) There are no records. You pay a subscription fee and you listen to the music while you pay that fee. There are no 'rental records' beyond the DRM on the file.

c) change to a newer device which no longer supports the format you rented.... etcetera. Ipods die. So do PCs, Macs, whatever. So your lifetime rental of music is only for the lifetime of your hardware.

Yes and no. I had an iRiver T10 for JANUS subscription music that I recently gave to my mom in preperation for getting the Zune. The Zune as we're all aware now doesn't use JANUS. So all of my subscription music doesn't work with it. Oh no, what will I do...wait, I know. I'll cancel my subscription to URGE and subscribe to the Zune store.

From my perspective...the only thing that will change is what MP3 player I'm using and the store that I download my tracks from. Subscription music likely will always be around in some form...I suspect it will become the dominant form of online purchasing. I mean, the argument against subscription music is like saying paying for SatRad is a waste because if your radio breaks you have to get a new one that works with that network and the network may go out of business one day.

Yes, all of the above may happen...but someone will probably still be providing more music so I'll get on with my life (and if they're not..well I didn't buy any music before and I don't ever intend to start. Its too expensive for the amount I listen to music. So I'll just go back to my old method...the radio.)

With the average hard drive dying in under 10 years, and DRM schemes and compressed music formats changing all the time, comparing vinyl or CD collecting to the convenience and economy of what the DRM pushers are selling is a false comparison. The major labels aren't offering a decent alternative (such as the $5 CD we were promised in the early '80's, which never materialized), so users are providing their own alternative; file sharing. If and when the mega-corps wake up, they'll get on the case and start trusting their customers and just sell the dang tunes.

I haven't had a CD last that long either. Audio casette tapes were very popular for 15 years or so and their lifespan was a few years at best. And while vinyl may have lasted the longest, most people don't have that sort of equipment these days to play it. People are always rebuying their music. I personally think the people who complain about DRM generally just like they have something to complain about.

Vampire Lestat

09-27-2006, 07:36 PM

Tons of the laws of the past were unfair, did not represent a social reality, or were simply destined to be changed. DMCA acts and all its brothers in other countries will all eventually be removed or neutered. If they are not, then we have a very serious social problem because the RIAA, BSA, MPAA suits are nothing but the beginning of a social cancer that will spread. Taken to its complete logic, those interest groups will get governments to simply hand over the keys of the Internet and hardware makers to them, THEY will decide how we communicate, THEY will decide how we entertain ourselves, THEY will decide who is a criminal or not by choosing who they sue.

If people were to pay for everything they watch, listen to, read, etc, they would all be broke. The creators of IP content deserve compensation and incentives for creating new content must exist. To do that, business models have to change. But the industry has to work to do that! Right now they are not, they are taking the "We will change the laws, sue, and forcefully control HOW the Internet works, OUR way". Those industries have to
1) downscale in size and power (which they dont want to do of course, and are now flooding the courts).
2) CONTINUE to earn by using radio royalties, advertising royalties, direct advertising revenue, concert revenue, physical products revenue.
3) Make new "time based" revenue streams by selling services like Web portals that allows consumers to tailor the unprotected filetype/bitrate (mp3, ogg, pixel size for movies) to their devices, and download songs from super huge and complete libraries. People will pay for instant access high quality tailored content. Other time based revenue is like online gaming. People gladly pay for the service of being able to build a community through a server/service. Find a way to do that in the music and video world. Perhaps a music site that that has live chats with artists all while offering you access to an endless music download library?
No that is all too complicated for the industry, they prefer to hang on the past, or be greedy and simply have everything for themselves, even if it means handicapping or destroying a R-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N-A-R-Y medium/tool called the I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T.

Laws are made to be changed. When hundreds of millions, soon billions, of people do a common thing, you can no longer consider it criminal. You change your law and adapt it to what is going on. This is a simple analysis because it is very clear and very logical that you should not make billions of citizens, sitting in their chairs staring at a screen, CRIMINALS for doing just that... sitting quietly in a chair, having an intellectual stimulation (music, book, movie). I know many people would love to supersimpliy the matter and keep coming to the overly simplistic conclusion: *talking like a robot* It is theft. It is theft. It is theft. It is theft. It is theft; but they are wrong. The Internet is a intellectual sharing tool, and that is our future. And its good.

The Internet is so powerful and societal changing that old laws, old lawmakers are struggling to find a way to continue to promote values of fairness and values of non-theft. Values that I personally share! The problem today is that everyone starts off with the premise that sharing is criminal. That thinking template will change. And if people don't change we will simply have to progressively shut down the Internet and hand over more and more of it to special interest groups.

The Internet is so powerful and efficient in sharing, that the Intellectual Property market cannot compete. Instead of adapting, they are sueing and using terror tactics. They have a literal army of lobbyist roaming the globe, all on 1 mission: control the Internet, model it to their benefit all under the simplistique guise "Well, we created that content!".
You can see all kinds of increasingly retarded anti-Internet suits going on these days: suits against Google for putting pictures, Google offering book snippets, Google for not posting a court judgement online, YouTube video, etc.

Yet... we all agree that Google is an amazing, revolutionary set of IP tools right? Who here does not appreciate its efficiency, its entertainment?

Look, I could go on and on all day on this, but this matter is already resolved in my mind. The Internet will go on, the laws must be changed to favor individual freedom, individual privacy, efficiency in communication, freedom to choose any kind of playback hardware, freedom to archiv any kind of data in any form, etc, etc, etc.

For all of you who are discouraged and upset, your feelings are normal. You know intuitively that you are not criminals and that something is very wrong with RIAA MPAA BSA, etc tactics. Our generation is pretty much finished with and we will have to live the rest of our lives with this army of interest groups and lawmakers who want to snuff the Internet.

But there is hope as today's kids will be tomorrows adults, tomorrow's lawyers, businessmen, leaders, and I am confident they will change the laws to secure Internet freedom/privacy, to better reflect a social reality, to better recognize that the Internet has solidified economies, has dramatically empowered individuals, has spawned many new small and big businessness, etc.

Are we ready to give all that up because a limited number is super powerful music/video market segments are unwilling to adapt?

No.

Do the right thing, make a stand, and do not feed the anti-Internet, anti-humanity interest beast that is named DRM.

Gerard

09-27-2006, 09:01 PM

Must feel pretty good, Tierran, being able to speak for all music listeners with such confidence. I'll continue supporting the artists I enjoy by purchasing their recordings directly, thanks anyway. Your listening rental scheme works for you and some others, great. For those who don't use music like junk food... ownership of portable, collectible media is more to the point. I'm happy, for example, that I was able to copy all my out-of-print vinyl to digital files. There is no other way to get much of that stuff.

Tierran

09-27-2006, 09:17 PM

Gerard

09-27-2006, 09:41 PM

So I am a 'snob' because I like to listen to non-top 40 music? Because I prefer, as many millions do, to go back to recordings I purchased 20 or 30 years ago, I'm some sort of elitist? If I prefer to listen to non-disposable music, stuff which didn't come with a 'best before' date, that make me irrelevant?

Yes, I acknowledge that Britney Spears/Kanye West (pardon me if I've misspelled) 'music' and its kind has a very large following. I can easily understand how many would be uninterested in holding onto copies of such titles for very long - usually until that hormonal phase passes, or the next manufactured act comes along. I can even appreciate that a portion of listeners might wish to rent time with nicer stuff, music with actual skills involved, as a way of sampling what's available. But sweeping generalizations about a whole younger generation not wanting to retain possession of better recordings seem ill placed. You speak for yourself, you say? Okay, I'll ignore the indication to the contrary in your initial post here, with considerable relief.

Tierran

09-27-2006, 09:56 PM

No, you're a snob because you're -

a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field

Also known as arrogant and annoying and probably a few things I can't post here. Feel free to respond cause I'm done with you! :lol: 0X

Gerard

09-27-2006, 10:09 PM

Tierran

09-27-2006, 10:42 PM

Hey there to Tierra (presumably singing loudly with hands over ears, punctuated with the occasional 'I CAN'T HEAR YOU!), I'm not the one who summarily dismissed everyone with a large music collection as being irrelevant. :)

Ok, now we're playing nice ;) I think you just completely misunderstood what I posted. People with a large music collection aren't irrelevant...just irrelevant to subscription music. Its not something you need...you already have your music. But for me to get as much music as you have I'll have to spend a large amount of money. I think part of the argument from this always comes from people like you who have so much music you couldn't imagine why you would want a restrictive music subscription.

But for someone like me, who has no music, it allows me to listen to things I couldn't have possibly listened to. The cost of ownership is just too high for me and I refuse to download tracks illegally.

Gerard

09-27-2006, 11:48 PM

I don't think our opinions/approaches are exclusive, and it seems we're both interested in supporting musicians. My apologies for reacting poorly.

By way of disclosure; it's a bit of a stretch for me to 'get over' my perspective, as 100% of my income derives from music. I've only earned trivial amounts as a musician, but all my clients, most of them doublebass players, are musicians and as such my work is for music. Music is 'just entertainment' - but so are most things we humans do. Building shelter and producing food take very little time compared to all the leisure occupations we undertake. Even in stone age cultures the essential working time for a comfortable existence is approximately 4 hours per day. So mere entertainment is a majority behavior in our species. Music happens to be among the more elaborate, and some argue more elevated (in many examples, if far from all), of our pursuits. Nothing 'mere' about that.

I'll try to be slightly more charitable regarding rental schemes... though it seems to me that in the long run they're ripping you off, big time.

jgrnt1

09-28-2006, 01:33 AM

Vampire Lestat,

It seems that you are arguing that intellectual property rights should vanish simply because there is a method (the internet) to circumvent them. That point of view is the main reason DRM is necessary. If everyone respected the rights of intellectual property holders and did not share or attempt to profit from what they purchased, elaborate DRM schemes would never have come into existence. Unfortunately, this is a case of a minority, who deliberately choose to break the law, making it difficult for everyone.

Gerard, as you can see from my note above to Vampire Lestat, I think you over-reacted to my previous post.
Can you prove you haven't shared your ripped files?

If you were referring to the ripping of my purchased CD's, I believe I still have that right, though the RIAA is trying to take it away. If you were referring to the few downloaded DRM'ed songs for which I lost the license, I thought I was pretty clear that I could, but had not, circumvented the DRM. I think I should have the right to do whatever I want with music that I purchase, so long as I do not share it with others, which would violate intellectual property rights (and my personal morals). However, the law has stated I cannot circumvent DRM, so I have not, which means I have lost the ability to play those purchased songs. You should have noticed that, though I mentioned DRM stripping software, I did not name the software, or provide a link. I stand by my statement that stripping the DRM would be the smart thing to do, so long as it is done only to insure the purchaser retains full rights to what he or she purchased. Unfortunately, the smart thing to do (to protect my rights as the purchaser) is not legal, and I will not break the law.

Gerard

09-28-2006, 03:23 AM

Your kick at the old misinterpretation can. My 'you' as in 'can you prove...' was intended in the generic sense, as in 'can all of you/us prove that our files have not been shared illegally, and likewise prove that they were not downloaded illegally? The MPAA recently sued a millionaire software developer for using a P2P network to download and simultaneously share a movie. The dude already owned a DVD copy of that movie, and further, intends to prove that he did not only have no reason to share said title, but did not do so. He has a fight on his hands. Those guys have some expensive and rather nasty attorneys. Proof of guit used to be the way our legal system placed penalties on lawbreakers. Now it's proof of innocence, in the new era of IP protection. This stuff isn't exactly the same as stealing a candy from the corner store, or ripping off seniors with bogus investments... it's a different game, and the rich boys are making the rules. I do not condone theft, of any sort, but I am still happier living in Canada, where it's at least less likely that I'll be jailed for listening to MP3s.

Vampire Lestat

09-28-2006, 07:31 AM

Vampire Lestat,

It seems that you are arguing that intellectual property rights should vanish simply because there is a method (the internet) to circumvent them. That point of view is the main reason DRM is necessary. If everyone respected the rights of intellectual property holders and did not share or attempt to profit from what they purchased, elaborate DRM schemes would never have come into existence.

IP rights should be null and void when it comes to non-profit Internet sharing.
The loss of sales due to online non-profit duplication is what the industry has to accept. They can still have a healthy business model in that context. They could make download portal sites that offer live and interactive content (what I called "time based"), while offering unprotected files for download and then sharing. And if they were smart, when they release a movie in theatres, they could sell RIGHT AWAY a high quality download that has DRM which expires after say 3 months.

The ultimate goal is to not be anti-sharing. They can find many ways to get in quick, make a buck, then leave the Internet share. The flip side of not doing that will be constant lawsuits, injustice, impossible micromanagement of the Internet, controls, stiffling of hardware and software innovation, threats on open source software, constant culture of fear on the Internet as to what is right/wrong, confusion, anger and a constant building of vicious hate towards the music industry and artists.

But you see, the music, movie and other industries just don't care. They have the big end of the legal baseball bat and they very much intend on beating up as many people as they can. Who knows, they might even end up including lawsuits as part of their annual revenue streams corporate reports.

Libraries have existed for thousands of years and books are still being written. The RIAA MPAA and others fears are gross exagerations that only serve their own pockets.

We need to put economic pressure by not buying anything related to DRM.
If that does not work, we must contact our elected officials to change the laws.
If that does not work, we have to elect other political parties.
If all the parties are colluding, then we have to build new political parties to throw all the anti-Internet ones out of office.

Ed Hansberry

09-28-2006, 02:19 PM

IP rights should be null and void when it comes to non-profit Internet sharing.
The loss of sales due to online non-profit duplication is what the industry has to accept. They can still have a healthy business model in that context. They could make download portal sites that offer live and interactive content (what I called "time based"), while offering unprotected files for download and then sharing. And if they were smart, when they release a movie in theatres, they could sell RIGHT AWAY a high quality download that has DRM which expires after say 3 months.

The ultimate goal is to not be anti-sharing.
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. 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.

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.

Gerard

09-28-2006, 05:22 PM

I agree with Ed's logic, given our unfortunate situation being trapped in a money mythology, but would add that every product available in a market exists 'in the wilderness' not in a bubble. Competition, adaptation, these are part of the harsh reality we've invented in our economy. And so, for instance, if a car company is to thrive, it must acknowledge and act upon environmental pressures. Witness the trend towards 'eco friendlier' vehicles, in a time when it is less and less acceptable to keep churning out tanks. Similarly, we find thc odd organically grown product even at 7-Eleven. Companies respond to consumer pressures if they wish to thrive.

In the field of digital information it is similarly left to the content owner/agent to respond, or not, to existing pressures. Since the internet provides mechanisms which facilitate easy sharing of data, and since the numbers of skilled DRM hackers is growing, not shrinking, it is left to these sellers (and renters) of data to either escalate the DRM race ad infinitum or find alternate solutions. As we've seen in many examples over recent years (remember the Shift key while loading a CD, or the black Sharpie along the CD edge, or how quickly a single developer cracked Sony's very expensively commissioned rootkit nonsense?) DRM efforts are easily circumvented, regardless of paid-for laws passed by lapdog governments.

While I'd be a little less rash fhan our vampire friend in tossing out the right to earn a living from one's labours, I do see it as inevitable that a non-DRM model will thrive where DRM-laden efforts are failing. Trust is at the core of this. Have you ever encountered a fruit stand along a country road, with a can on the counter and a little sign saying 'leave money here'? I have, lots of times. Bicycling affords noticing such things. Why should the farmer have to sit, hour upon hour, waiting for the odd customer? In extending trust, allowing that most people are not thieves, these wonderful people are fostering a healthier culture. There are a lot of other working examples, but I'll leave it there. What kind of world do we want? We decide that, right?

Janak Parekh

09-29-2006, 03:48 PM

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.

--janak

disconnected

09-29-2006, 04:18 PM

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.

disconnected

09-29-2006, 04:26 PM

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.

Steve Jordan

09-29-2006, 08:54 PM

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.

jlp

09-29-2006, 11:49 PM

...

The ultimate goal is to not be anti-sharing.
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.

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.

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.

jlp

09-30-2006, 02:03 AM

The only viable business model is selling loads of non DRM infested music at a highly affordable price to a lot more people.

Apple's current model is just a start in the right direction but things should and can be done in a much much MUCH better way.

I was writing all the details when I realized I should write a paper on this.

More info later 8).

Vampire Lestat

09-30-2006, 08:39 AM

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:

YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

E-N-D of story.

Vampire Lestat

09-30-2006, 08:56 AM

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.