Print

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

[glynor]

Ars Technica has a very interesting article up that I'm currently wading through, and which I thought some others here might like to check out.  While it's titled "Hacking DRM" it is not a primer on how to defeat DRM at all!  It's more of a history of DRM (Digial Rights Restrictions Management), how it has been defeated (and failed on it's own), and where it is likely to go in the future.  So far, it's been a very worthy read!

[hit_ny]

Expect more of the cat & mouse game that was seen with the previous formats with the usual predictable results.

DVDs are still selling regardless of DeCSS...or did that help sell even more since you won't be left with worthless plastic in case of an accident.

..can i say everyone wins

[jgreen]

Although you and I and most rational beings would agree that DRM has failed to affect anything other than casual theft and fair use, the customers--the RIAA and now the MPAA--are delighted with the results.  And as long as the RIAA thinks the DRM is doing a proper job, internet download services such as Napster et al will continue to operate, services that didn't exist until DRM was "perfected".  Therefore I submit that DRM is a success, and a joke.

You and I would like to hope that the purpose of DRM is to put a stop to stealing, but the RIAA has never said that.  Rather, the RIAA has stated that its goal is to REDUCE certain undesirable activities, namely wholesale file sharing and rampant fair use.  Certain of us will continue to use our property as we please (at least in private), but the RIAA isn't knocking on your or my door, currently.  They've got their hands full suing torrent clubs and single mothers on welfare.  And they're proud of it, and feel certain they're making good progress. 

So I say, good for you, RIAA!  Keep at it!  Fight the good fight!  You've spent the last five decades pumping us full of songs that incite drug use, gang violence, rape and murder.  And now you want us to stop stealing--stealing stuff we've already paid for?  Ooooh, that hurts!

[glynor]

Although you and I and most rational beings would agree that DRM has failed to affect anything other than casual theft and fair use, the customers--the RIAA and now the MPAA--are delighted with the results.  And as long as the RIAA thinks the DRM is doing a proper job, internet download services such as Napster et al will continue to operate, services that didn't exist until DRM was "perfected".  Therefore I submit that DRM is a success, and a joke.

Yes, and no.  I, and the article if you read it through the end, postulate that DRM has accomplished a lot of what the industry wanted (and is well on it's way to finishing the plan).  It was never, and is still not, about piracy at all.

It's the RIAA/MPAA's same old target, Fair Use, that they're after.  DRM isn't about stopping "real" piracy any more than the death penalty is designed to discourage psycopaths from murder (as if they are rational beings who consider consequences before taking action).  It's about double (and tripple) dipping.

They want to sell us the same songs (or shows or movies) over and over again for our different devices.  They want us to buy one copy for the house, and one for our iPod (or PSP or whatever), one for the car, one for work, and then pay a "streaming usage fee" when we want to stream that file (which we already own at home) over at someone else's house (there's some inklings that they also hope to monetize time shifting -- all the rhetoric about "stealing" by skipping commercials and the provisions hidden in the recent copyright enhancement bills).  Think about it.  What was UMD (the PSP disc format) about? Or BluRay/HD-DVD?  What about the iTunes video store?  Of course, if you buy the DVD you could just rip those shows/movies to your iPod yourself.... Oh wait, the DRM.  Even though it's trivial to break, that's against the law, so the tools are obscure (and hard to use and difficult to find).  It's easier just to pay the $3 for an iPod version.

It's all about seeing green.  Before, they thought the profits from selling movies in the theater, then on DVD, then to HBO, and then to USA or TBS, and finally to NBC affiliates were good.  That's nothing compared to millions and millions of individual sales to people who want to move the files to their iPod (and then hopefully, the iPod will be replaced by a new, different fad player and people will need another version for that).

[CadErik]

Although you and I and most rational beings would agree that DRM has failed to affect anything other than casual theft and fair use, the customers--the RIAA and now the MPAA--are delighted with the results. 

This is not true... Without DRM, iTunes and Napster simply won't be here. There probably wouldn't be any "official" way to download music online.
Also since most people seem to be iTunes customers, they don't seem to see other benefits of DRM. A service like Napster subscription (= unlimited download) is a real step over the old pay per cd/song.

I wouldn't say that DRM has really been cracked... None of the techniques are really mainstream... Of course there are always ways to go around it, anyone with a soundcard with digital I/O can loop it and record the song, but for today's average media library size, this is not practical. I can't imagine someone doing that for over 10 songs.

[glynor]

A service like Napster subscription (= unlimited download) is a real step over the old pay per cd/song.

I, personally (and many people here), would call it a step backwards.  You're renting the music rather than buying it.  You lose your first sale rights (you can't re-sell the media when you no longer want it), you give up your fair use rights (to format and place shift the media), and you're locked into a service essentially forever.  Imagine that Napster ever really does take off (doubtful, but still).  Once they have a large user base that has spent a lot of time building up huge libraries, they essentially have monopoly pricing power over those users.  They can change the price structure however they want, and you just have to pay (or lose access to all that media).  Good for the distributers, but hardly a benefit for the consumer.

What I meant about it failing to affect anything other than casual theft is that all of the highly-protected CDs (including those with copy protection on the disc itself) are available immediately, DRM free, on the "open" P2P networks.  The real pirates, those that are pressing CDs/DVDs and selling them on masse, are not being stopped in any real way by any of these methods.

You mention that they don't seem to see the other benefits of DRM.  How can it benefit me (or any consumer)?  By it's very definition, it is designed to prevent me from using the media as I see fit (and in ways that I could otherwise with a regular CD).  I can certainly see the benefit for the entertainment industry... But thats irrelevant to me.  In fact, I think it would help the quality of our entertainment overall if there was a serious shake-up (and break up) of the major entertainment conglomerates.

Indie labels seem to understand (at least they're starting to) what the Grateful Dead understood so long ago.  People trading your music/content helps, rather than hurts, sales.

We will see.  I doubt that consumers will accept it when they have to buy that same song for the third time.  I think we will start to hear from the "unwashed masses" then.  Hopefully it won' be too late.

[JimH]

I, personally (and many people here), would call it a step backwards. 

Have you tried a subscription service?  They're pretty amazing.  You can play whatever you want.  It's unlimited access to music and (if it works correctly) just as good as having it stored locally.  There is a quality difference compared with a lossless library, but for many purposes it's not a factor.

You're renting the music rather than buying it.  You lose your first sale rights (you can't re-sell the media when you no longer want it), you give up your fair use rights (to format and place shift the media), and you're locked into a service essentially forever.  Imagine that Napster ever really does take off (doubtful, but still).  Once they have a large user base that has spent a lot of time building up huge libraries, they essentially have monopoly pricing power over those users.  They can change the price structure however they want, and you just have to pay (or lose access to all that media). 

Or switch services.

By its very definition, [DRM] is designed to prevent me from using the media as I see fit (and in ways that I could otherwise with a regular CD).

When implemented properly (and we've seen it done several times now) these new services are unobtrusive.  Most people using them wouldn't know the difference.  WM services allow you to transfer unlimited tracks to devices, and in some cases burn CD's.

I can certainly see the benefit for the entertainment industry... But thats irrelevant to me.  In fact, I think it would help the quality of our entertainment overall if there was a serious shake-up (and break up) of the major entertainment conglomerates.

Probably true.

We will see.  I doubt that consumers will accept it when they have to buy that same song for the third time. 

Shouldn't happen.

[glynor]

Have you tried a subscription service?  They're pretty amazing.  You can play whatever you want.  It's unlimited access to music and (if it works correctly) just as good as having it stored locally.

I have tried Napster actually.  I agree, it is a great service for some users... There were lots of problems with it for me.  First of all, the range of available music was very limited.  New, popular stuff abounded, but back catalogs and indie tracks are still much easier to find on Gnutella.  Plus, I'm (I admit) somewhat philosophically opposed to renting much of anything.  The "purchase" options in Napster were even more crippled and broken.

Plus, it just wasn't flexible enough.  If I buy a song, I want to be able to play it on whatever platform I want (Linux, OSX, my MP3 CD Player, my Car CD player, or my wife's iPod).  I also want to be able to use it for a soundtrack in my home movies created using Final Cut Pro.  I also need to be able to re-sell it when I no longer want it (I don't care how they handle forcing me to give up my copies).  If there was a DRM format that easily allowed me to do all of that, without violating the DMCA, I'd be happy.  Until then....

Oh, and switching to another service assumes that the pricing problem isn't caused by the record companies themselves.  If it is (and keep in mind, these people have already been found guilty of price fixing and collusion once), then what choice will I have?  If the RIAA member companies all raise their rates (and they've certainly indicated they'd like to -- where it comes to iTunes at least), then ALL of the "rental" services will have to raise theirs.

At least with CDs I can buy used, or just keep listening to the music I already have!

Just switching to a different service would work if the free market economy really worked in the entertainment business.  Unfortunately, the RIAA member companies operate (more often than not) as a single entity, creating an effective monopoly.

That's why I said that a shake/break up would help.  It would help quality of product, pricing, and quality of service.

[jgreen]

Cad--
I'm actually a big fan of the subscription services--Napster, Performer Digital, etc--it's just my convoluted phraseology that throws off the casual reader.  And I definitely agree that it wasn't until we got DRM that these services were made possible.  So I'm glad we have DRM, I just think it's a joke.

A joke by my standards, and a success by the record industry's.  I think DRM should stop theft, while the RIAA just wants it to slow down use.  Well, it's not slowing my use down any, so some other guy must be slowed down double, which is fine by me.

So setting aside the DRM issue, I just want to second JimH on the rental services.  Performer is giving you a 30-day trial, before you have to do ANYTHING.  Napster is still offering 7 days, I believe.  If you are building a library from scratch, there should be no other option--it would take decades to break even on the cost of purchasing.  Rent online, buy CDs of the stuff you really like.  When I started building my collection (prior millenium), $18 for a CD seemed reasonable, especially if there was more than one song you liked on it.  Find a CD with three songs you liked on it--wow! that's only $6/per track!

[CadErik]

Or switch services.

Talking about switching service... I just checked Performer Digital... Even at the install, it had some familiar controls hehe
This is really cool stuff, a music service with a MC player :-)
The catalogue seems to be similar to Napster... I'm currently a napster subscriber... How difficult would it be to switch?

Would you know by any chance when this would be available for Canadians? They have a Canada flag on the front page but when you wnat to subscribe, the only allowed country is USA :-(

Erik.

[JimH]

Thanks, Erik.  Not sure about when Canada will be offered.  The backend is MusicNet.

If you have tracks purchased from Napster, they should play in MC or in the Performer player.