Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[glynor]

I certainly wouldn't be interested in any program that requires a subscription or my media stops working.   

I, like many others here, am pretty well opposed to DRM in general.  I feel it violates our constitutionally "guaranteed" Fair-Use rights and finally allows the media conglomerates to do through technology what they have been unable to do in the past via lawsuits.

<rant>

It's my strongly held belief that copyright law is severly broken in many ways, but perhaps the worst is the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA.  This effectively grants the media conglomerates perpetual copyright.  The copyright law says that the copyright persists only for a limited period of time after which it is supposed to pass into the public domain (of course, they'll just keep pleading for extensions because Steamboat Willy might *gasp* pass into the public domain).  That is how society and knowledge progresses.  If you look back over the history of music and literature, it is riddled with borrowing (and sometimes outright stealing) from those who came before, changed and updated and modified into new forms.  That is how we have progress in the arts.

The problem is that with DRM, no one can force the companies to give up their copyrights even after the now-rediculous period of time expires before it passes into the public domain, because circumventing the technology is illegal!  How then, will the musician of the future be able to remix and reuse the content of yesterday in order to create something new and better?  Worse even, we could lose the legacy of the music that came before.  So much material out there is already unavailable because it has gone "out of print".  But at least once the copyright expires, the people who do have the rare copies are free to distribute it to the world so that it can continue to be enjoyed.  With the DRM-enabled media of the future, this won't be possible.  Once the music is gone, and the DRM no longer works (because the company selling it no longer exists or because the technology has moved on without that format), it will be gone forever.

The really sad thing is that all this DRM stuff is being pushed down our throats under the guise that it will "protect the poor, starving artists" from the "evil pirates".  In reality, it just allows the entertainment "industry" to double and triple charge you for content you already own.  The DRM isn't ever going to stop piracy, the same way Windows Activation didn't stop people from pirating windows.  All it does is stop the average, clueless consumer from "format shifting".  Want to watch that show on your new HDTV?  Pay up.  Want to be able to then watch the show you already paid for on your new, shiny iPod?  Too bad, you can't convert it because of the DRM... Pay up.  Want to listen to the music from your home computer on your work computer?  Nope, you'll need to buy it again.  Want losseless versions of that music you just bought on iTunes/Napster/Yahoo/Google Video/JRiver?  Cha-ching!

All the while the pirates in China are churning out more "illegal" copies than ever before.  They basically just figured out a way to criminalize format/time-shifting, which they've really wanted to monetize all along.  Plus, it guarantees that the "corporation" will always have a place in the entertainment business.  The internet is the media company's worst nightmare...  Think about it.  Radiohead doesn't really need the record label in an all-digital, internet-connected world.  They could just record at home on their uber-powerful computers and release it on a web site (distributing it via Bittorrent so they don't even have to pay for bandwidth).  With DRM though, Radiohead still needs the label.  They have the DRM technology patents, you see, without which (sound the alarms) the pirates will attack.  (But the pirates still attack you say?  Get out of here, we don't need your kind around here).

I think Pink Floyd said it best...

Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I’ll buy me a football team.

</rant>

The only "product" of this type I'd ever buy into would be one that guarantees my Fair Use rights to format and time shift at will, guarantees my First Sale rights (I have to be able to re-sell my media to others for a price that only I determine), and one that doesn't "expire" if I stop paying some subscription fee (or if the company running the service goes belly up).

Period.

[JimH]

I certainly wouldn't be interested in any program that requires a subscription or my media stops working. 

I, like many others here, am pretty well opposed to DRM in general. 

Not to defend DRM, but....

When you subscribe, you're getting a good deal on the music.  It's an all you can eat proposition.

The record labels are renting you the music instead of selling it to you.  It's like being able to rent a $300,000 house for $2000 a month.  As long as you keep paying the rent, you get about the same thing you would as if you owned it.

For better or worse, I think the fight over DRM or not isn't going to go anywhere.  The good news is that the DRM implementations are getting close to providing the same user experience as using open content.

[glynor]

And, just like renting, once your landlord decides to sell your house, you have absolutely no rights.

All those montly $2000 payments are worthless, as you still have no house, but you're signifigantly poorer for it.  Any economics student can tell you that renting on anything more than a short-term basis is just not worth it (especially for items that hold their value).

I should say, I'm not completely opposed to DRM.  I think it should be perfectly legal for DRM to be applied to media.  I'm opposed to the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA.  I think that once the copyright expires on a protected work, we should be free to break the DRM and do what we want with it.  I also think we should be allowed to break the DRM to enable us to do with the media things that we are typically allowed to do under fair use (format shifting, backups, etc).  I'm also not saying that they have to show us how to break it, or even make it easy, but just not make it illegal.

[JimH]

And, just like renting, once your landlord decides to sell your house, you have absolutely no rights.

You have the right to rent somewhere else.

I know there are arguments on your side, and I don't disagree with most of them.  But I'm the guy who used to never provide a social security number as an ID and now I can't get auto insurance or cell phone coverage without doing it.  Times change.  Standards change. 

If you want to get on a soapbox, take on the White House secret surveilance program or any of the many other civil liberties we're seeing eroded.  DRM is only a minor issue when it's done right.

[JimH]

I'm opposed to the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA. 

Total agreement here.  I don't think it will stand up when it finally gets tested in court.

[glynor]

If you want to get on a soapbox, take on the White House secret surveilance program or any of the many other civil liberties we're seeing eroded.  DRM is only a minor issue when it's done right.

Oh, and I do on those issues too, and somewhat more vociferously.  Though I have to disagree.  Freedom of all kinds are important, but I think that freedom of information is perhaps the most important issue of our time.  It will shape the development of art, music, literature, scientific works, and learning for perhaps the next century or more.

What could be more important than that?  I don't want Big Brother to listen in on my phone calls, but I certainly want my great-great-great grandchildren to have their own version of Mozart and Shakespeare (as opposed to just Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys).

On another note, I also think it is a very bad business decision for JRiver to get into the digital media distribution fray.... I'll try to explain, but in a separate posting.   

[JimH]

Freedom of all kinds are important, but I think that freedom of information is perhaps the most important issue of our time.  It will shape the development of art, music, literature, scientific works, and learning for perhaps the next century or more.

While I think this is true concerning existing content, in the future the Internet will provide alternate ways to distribute or to monetize creative works.  There is nothing preventing an artist from making their content available without DRM or even without payment. 

Over time, the marketplace will determine whether DRM provides enough benefits to outweigh the costs for most users.

[glynor]

There is nothing preventing an artist from making their content available without DRM or even without payment.

That would be true if the Entertainment market was really a fair, true, open market.  It isn't though.

The RIAA/MPAA companies operate effectively as one unit and exercise monopoly power over the industry that would make the old railroad barons green with envy.  And, they are now attempting to write specific DRM requirements into legislation, which would give it the weight of law.

Plus, they have the power of technological lock-in with DRM enabled devices.  If your TV will only play "trusted" content, and your iPod will only play "trusted" content, and the law says it's illegal to manufacture or sell any device that doesn't obey specific technological rules (which are essentially defining a format), and those formats are closed.  On top of it all they have control over essentially all current media not just for the next few years, but effectively for our entire lifetimes.  True, Radiohead may decide to release their next album DRM free and direct to consumers, but they won't be able to play on your TV/radio/car stereo/iPod, or if it can, they won't be able to "sell" it in the same "store" along side all the other media.  What would Radiohead's motivation be to do so?

Other than to make a statement, it would probably be a losing proposition, since they don't own the rights to re-distribute all their old works.  To top it all off, how would the consumer know to make these informed decisions about what devices to buy when the sales people would tell them... Well, you could buy that "non-supported device" and get access to a handful of Indie songs, but to access ALL of the content from the past 75 years, you'll need this one over here that only plays "trusted" media.

Which do you think they'll choose?  Ease of use or freedom?

[glynor]

I should say, I'm not completely opposed to DRM.  I think it should be perfectly legal for DRM to be applied to media.  I'm opposed to the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA.  I think that once the copyright expires on a protected work, we should be free to break the DRM and do what we want with it.  I also think we should be allowed to break the DRM to enable us to do with the media things that we are typically allowed to do under fair use (format shifting, backups, etc).  I'm also not saying that they have to show us how to break it, or even make it easy, but just not make it illegal.

(Look at this, I'm quoting myself).

One other very sad thing that occurs to me about all of this is how completely and utterly unnecessary it all is.  Just like when the movie industry went after Sony for the Betamax deck, only to use Video Recorders to achieve record profits over the long term, the entertainment industry is just being plain stupid.

It doesn't have to be illegal to break DRM for DRM to work to stop casual piracy.  People will pay for media if it is (1) easier, (2) higher quality, (3) reliable, and (4) fair.  The sucess of the Apple iTunes store shows that if nothing else.  Despite all the lawsuits, you can still very easily obtain anything you want free of charge on a wide variety of P2P networks (content available has consistently gone up not down since the legal barrage began).

I think, when everything is said and done, people would still continue to pay money for entertainment even if there are free alternatives available as long as the pay-for-it options provide the benefits mentioned above.  After all, we pay for Windows when Linux is available for free.  We pay for MC when iTunes is available.  I think it's sad that the things they are doing could ultimately hurt humanity and hurt America, when it is all completely unneeded.

[glynor]

Since it's along the lines of this topic, I thought I'd post a link to this recent news story for those who hadn't seen it.

MPAA admits to unauthorized movie copying

What did Alanis say? 

Isn't it ironic?  Don't you think?  A little too ironic...

[Myron]

Just to throw more fuel on the fire, the RIAA wants to impose an "Audio Flag" on digital audio broadcasts.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/pressreleases/CEAaudioflagShapiro.php

[glynor]

Yeah.  Ars also had a great writeup on the most recent Senate Hearing.

It's long and it's here.

[Matt]

The Napster craze proved that otherwise honest people will steal music if it's easy.  The public gave the labels little choice but to demand DRM.

The hitch is that no current DRM solution provides a full package.  With a paid-download system, you "own" something you can't sell again.  With a subscription system, you pay for music you can't play in a CD player.  With either system, you don't get full CD-quality sound.

[glynor]

The Napster craze proved that otherwise honest people will steal music if it's easy.

Maybe.  But maybe all it proved is that otherwise honest people will steal music if there is no other viable easy alternative to achieve what you want for a reasonable price.  I mean, look at the success of the "legal" download services... It's not like Gnutella doesn't work today!

Maybe DRM won't help the labels with that problem at all.

[Myron]

Yeah.  Ars also had a great writeup on the most recent Senate Hearing.

It's long and it's here.

Thanks, for the link.  Good sumary...

[glynor]

The Napster craze proved that otherwise honest people will steal music if it's easy.  The public gave the labels little choice but to demand DRM.

I thought of one more thing just now.... (After this I really, really, really have to let it go and go to bed but)

I'm sure you didn't mean it quite literally, but I'm also opposed to using the word "steal" in that connotation.  It's not stealing.  Stealing by definition is when you take someone's posession without permission and cause them damages by not having that posession.

For example, say for example some genius had invented one of those Star Trek uncertainty-principle violating replicator contraption.  If I then took this device and replicated your car, which you purchased, it would not deprive you of the car for which you paid.  You'd still have it and be able to use it.  I didn't steal your car, and I didn't harm you unless I plugged my contraption into your power outlet (since it would of course require more power than is generated here where I grew up -- maybe that's what's wrong with me).

It might very well harm the manufacturer of the car, which would have a difficult time selling any more cars to new customers for the same price, but it wouldn't harm the car's owner.  Protecting the manufacturer is a dangerous game.  What other technology do you outlaw to protect the all-mighty car industry?  You could also use that same replicator to make massive quantities of food (which the farmers would hate) and life-saving drugs (which the drug companies would hate).  But if you ended world hunger and saved millions of poor African terrorists-in-training in the process is it worth it?

It reminds me of something I heard on the radio not too long ago...  At the turn of the last century the state I live in was the worlds largest producer of a certain commodity.  We were huge.  Our product was shipped all over the globe to India, South America, Europe, and beyond.  Unfortunately, within a few short years the global market for our product completely disappeared.  The economic consequenses were severe.  There were layoffs and broken dreams.

What was the product?

Imagine if we had protected that industry from progress.

Using file sharing applications to distribute copyrighted works without the creator's permission is certainly copyright infringement (downloading those shared works is far more of a gray area which is why they haven't sued anyone for downloading media, only uploading it).  Its probably also immoral.  But it's not stealing.  Not to mention that there has never been any causal relationship proven between downloading music via P2P and decreasing record sales.  These companies that are crying foul are posting record profits year after year

What I fear the most is that this practice could harm the future intellectual and cultural output of the nation (actually, it is already).  I believe one of their strongest arguments is that with Industry sending jobs overseas one of the few aces Americans have is the spread and domination of American cultural entertainment and intellectual property...  What about when our cultural entertainment and related IP isn't worth anything anymore because it's the same stuff they've been putting out for a few decades?

[jgreen]

Glynor,  you will never hear anything but the word "steal" from any company hoping to stay in business tomorrow.  The RIAA has won the power to shut down any company that calls it otherwise.  You rant on and on about music being free, but what about a little empathy for the American businessman who's lost his freedom of speech?  As long as these companies foster a reasonably hostile environment towards piracy (recall posts being edited), the RIAA Thought Police are held at bay.   So in that sense the RIAA is censoring half of this conversation.   Where is your indignation now?

[GHammer]

Ah, the old 'it is not stealing' debate.
It is. The owner of the product (the song) did not decide to make it available for free.
You can justify, shade meanings, be willfully obtuse.
Fact is it is stealing.

Now, having said that, do I like the entertainment industry's answer? Nope.
In the interest of protecting a handful of companies, the US (by and large) has dictated IP protection be built into new standards and hardware. Made it a crime to defeat these protections. That can and has stifled innovation. "Gee Pete, is that going to get us sued?"

Technology and the corruption of money in politics have progressed to the point where this is possible. There is no doubt that radio and cassettes would have been the targets if the same abilities had been there years ago.

DAT tape deck anyone?

[glynor]

You and I simply disagree on who the owner of the song is.

To me, the owner is the purchaser.  Once you buy a CD, you own that CD.

The creator doesn't "own" the product anymore after you purchase it (that's called the right of first sale).  They own the copyright on the product, which prevents you from duplicating and distributing the product.  By your definition, if I take my CD over to a friend's house and play the song for them, that friend is also stealing the work, because they haven't gotten permission from the "owner" to listen to it.

Alas, reasonable people can disagree on this topic.  That's why it's controversial.   

[GHammer]

No, the P2P idea is not playing a song for your friend.

[glynor]

Fair enough... But is taping a song off the radio stealing?  (The courts say no).

Also rememeber, while the PR machine always implies that downloading music is stealing, they haven't actually gone after anyone who has only downloaded things off of P2P (they claim that they can at any time but they haven't).  They are suing people who share things on P2P which is quite different. IANAL, but I have read many legal opinions that they aren't suing the downloaders because they're afraid they'll lose (similar to how they lost the fight over radio taping).

Again, to be clear.  While I do not think it is stealing to do this, that does not mean I think it's right.  It can be wrong and still not theft.  It may seem like a semantic difference, but in the future it could become more and more important (we shall see).

[Mysticeti]

You have the right to rent somewhere else.
<snip>

Good point.  But everyone knows that moving is a pain in the rear.  Especially as you get older and accumulate more "stuff".

Maybe what we need is an open standard that would make it simple/easy to move playlists, smartlists, etc. from service to service.

That way, should your prefered music service go out of business you'd have half a chance of migrating to a new service w/o too much trouble.  This might be a useful service even if the music isn't DRM'd.   This all assumes there's a large degree of overlap in terms of music availability between services.

One might even be able to create a front end that abstracted the various services UI's so that moving from one to another would be transparent.

However, I'm sure there would be resistance to this from the service providers for obvious reasons (think cell phone number transportability).

[hit_ny]

However, I'm sure there would be resistance to this from the service providers for obvious reasons (think cell phone number transportability).

I don think they will share that easily either, just think of Instant Messaging, and that's nearly 10 yrs old now, same scenario.

But it might be possible to work around if you use a client that can talk to both services

Could MC be the "trillian" in this game ?

[GHammer]

I'm willing to bet that Napster's licenses do not work with/for any other service and vice versa.
The license is tied to the provider as far as I can see, and if they go away or just get stupid pricing, you're stuck.

No thanks.

[glynor]

"Making available" == copyright infringement, says RIAA

Maybe, or maybe not.  Interesting read.

[GHammer]

Well here's a refreshing story:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/nettwerk_sues_riaa/

[hit_ny]

Wow !! ...would be interesting to see how this case turns out.

..let's also see whether the next  Avril Lavigne release slowly creeps to the top of the charts

[Mr ChriZ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/4653808.stm

[datdude]

Glynor,

in theory your argument of DRM makes sense.  In practice however it doesn't hold up.

History has shown it is impossible to shut out information from the populous at large.

Unless a global catastrophe happens wiping us all out,  drm will not prevent the music of today from being available tomorrow.

Don't get me wrong, I hate drm and refuse to buy it but it is what it is.  There will always be ways around it.

I think what is frustrating is that good music is not able to make its way to the mass market because of the market stranglehold by the RIAA.  Not because the music can't get out, but because the RIAA's trash is hyped and piped 1000x more than the honest music made by people who actually care about the music itself.