If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[Tim S]

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2006/10...join_em/1.html

[LoveJoy]

That some ****ed up ****

[specofdust]

Very good article. It brings everyone up to date well, explains why things are happening. I guess what's left to discuss is, will this standardised future actually happen, or will things stay messed up as everyone aims for different goals?

[mmorgue]

Some interesting points of view..

But from a consumer viewpoint, the only thing that will/would matter would be the scenario where JonDoe buys song X (legally) from a place on the net and can then use it on any of his numerous media players, being PC, CD, DVD, portable player, flash key -- whatever.

From JonDoe viewpoint all he cares about is that he spent his money on song X so as it's his copy, he should be entitled to play it where he wants. And until a business model fits that paradigm, we'll always have the headbutting of the two sides...

[kenco_uk]

Damn good read, that

[Ramble]

DRM isn't here to stop pirates, it's here to invade rights.
Until that changes, I shall be fighting against it (by not having any DRM (entertainment) file on my computer).

[quack]

/me points at avatar, user title and signature.

I have the "DRM is killing music" image on a t-shirt. It was also my previous avatar.

[Vermino]

you know what's stupid? you can rent a book at a library for free.. why can't you rent a DVD or some songs?.. sure artists and actors are loosing a chuck on their money. But if they have "real" fans, the fans will support them and actually go out and buy their music and/or movies..

(i know it's about the bullsh*ters that pirate movies/music and resells it to people for profits)... but with the naspter law suite, he wasnt a re-seller. He just "rented" his movies and music. This scare tactic aint going to put off anyone. They are just going to hype the media, pull one or two people into a law suite, and then see if people will slow down on pirating.. I'm sorry but if your going to go into a group of a million of people (and I'm one of them) pull out a gun and shoot someone at random, the chances of you hitting me? slim to none, chances of running? slim to none..

So I say dont be afraid of this stupid scare tactic. This is just the goverment getting pissed because they arent seeing those last 10-20million dollars in taxes..

oh yeah, umm the people are always going to be one step ahead.. we made shareware so they put up product keys. so we made key gens and they made you use CD's to run. so we made drive emulators.. (speaking of pirating games)

I'm just saying, be ready for a stupid scene from the media..

[Kipman725]

DRM has nothing to do with piracy. It's all about monopoly. To create a blue ray player etc. a new company has to join the DRM clubs which charge vast amounts of money. This stops unwanted compotition and the oposite of the original intent of patent and copyright law.

[speedfreek]

Originally Posted by Kipman725

DRM has nothing to do with piracy. It's all about monopoly. To create a blue ray player etc. a new company has to join the DRM clubs which charge vast amounts of money. This stops unwanted compotition and the oposite of the original intent of patent and copyright law.

Duh.

Anything to make more money in the short term seems to be a popular thing. Who cares what the customers think or want, if they buy it its their own fault.

[Firehed]

I'm with quack and Ramble.... DRM is damned evil and I refuse to give a cent to any media using it. If that, on occasion, drives me to piracy, then so be it - if that's what it takes for me to show that DRM causes piracy, then that's what it takes. Not only would I buy the media, I'd like to do so - I *want* to support the producers. But when they treat me like a criminal, I want to make sure they're justified in doing so.

[xPaladin]

Great article.

I think the whole point with Metallica bootlegs is fantastic and sums up my feelings about DRM in general. It's absolutely correct (or if not, highly probable) that they'd have never gotten off the ground if not for bootlegs.

What I think happens is that when these guys -- artists, game devs, and movie producers -- reach "living room" status, they're more than willing to soak up every single dollar they can. They gain a sense of entitlement since their word has "cultural meaning." Saying a word like "Metallica," which is literally a word without meaning, can still invoke some kind of emotional response from the general human consciousness.

Trouble is, it's up to the consciousness to keep these names meaningful. At first, this is fairly easily because of the need for something new, cool, and/or different. Not much effort is required, aside from pleasing the fans. It's when the name has value that people get unreasonably greedy, when they should not. Yes, it takes effort to distinguish oneself from the flock, but it's truly arguable whether or not they deserve significant monetary credit for doing so.

I really think these artists should treat cost-free exposure as a privilege and not an asset.

[md2000]

The concept of mimicking the iPod DRM is OK, but leaves a few questions unanswered -

Does the company sell the software to also "read" the files, or just to create them?
-If no, then they can license to vendors who want to create DRM'ed content for existing iPods.
-If Yes, then they could sell code for vendors who want to create their own iPod clones, or allow iTunes music to play on their devices or media players.

Of course, at what point does the software then begin to violate the DMCA? Once you've broken it? What if it works just like Apple's, and simply allows your device to become a legitimate palyer? What if it accepts multiple keys so you could add other peoples' music? What if accepts those keys, but doesn't increase your "device count"? What if they argued that. like iPods. their device should not increase device count because it's not really a computer?

What if they created "loanable devices", say hundreds of iPod-like devices running music from one keyed location - that all used the same giant library of music, but allowed you to add your own, borrow the devices like a public librabry, etc.? What if the device had a USB-out for digital transmission to speakers (or whatever, ha ha)?

DRM fiddling creates as many questions as it answers...

Presumably, as long as the device is not to REMOVE or DEFEAT DRM, and has legitimate non-infringing uses, ...?

[Charles1]

cant you just buy a softaware that lets you rip it to mp3 then share it then use a third party software to share like we have now. So log on get music form john and then you have the same song. I am a little lost what will this do to me? I mean i have software that allows me to ripp dvd and music then burn them to a disc and i can play it every where I want. SO can someone enlighten me on how this affects me?

[customh]

Originally Posted by Firehed

I'm with quack and Ramble.... DRM is damned evil and I refuse to give a cent to any media using it. If that, on occasion, drives me to piracy, then so be it - if that's what it takes for me to show that DRM causes piracy, then that's what it takes. Not only would I buy the media, I'd like to do so - I *want* to support the producers. But when they treat me like a criminal, I want to make sure they're justified in doing so.

Agreed. But that said i will give to a service using it because the ones that dont have sucky music selection, if not lemme know.

If you have a music file from iTunes, removing the FairPlay from it so it can play on your Sansa or Zen is also a violation. In fact, even having the tools to do so will put you on the wrong side of the legal line.

We all have these tools, its called the "burn disc" button in your favorite media player. I use wal-mart music store as of late and its on windows media. I buy the songs, burn them to disc, then rip them into itunes so i get raw mp3 files.

[thecrownles]

Originally Posted by Vermino

you know what's stupid? you can rent a book at a library for free.. why can't you rent a DVD or some songs?

My library actually does allow you to rend DVDs, VHSs and CDs, but they charge a dollar per day on overdue fees... so you have to be careful about getting them back.

[rembo666]

The funny part is I used to pay for music before DRM started appearing on everything. Since I rip my music to my Linux server and I tend to reload my OS every once in a while, I ended up having some tracks that simply wouldn't play. I'm not against supporting the artist and all, but I want to be able to use the product I've purchased. Since then, I've been sticking to pirated music (allofmp3.com rules!) and haven't bought a CD in a couple of years.

Plays for sure my ass...

[Cthippo]

Originally Posted by thecrownles

My library actually does allow you to rend DVDs, VHSs and CDs, but they charge a dollar per day on overdue fees... so you have to be careful about getting them back.

My sister does that a lot, borrows CDs from the library and rips them to iTunes for her 'pod. Sooner or later we're going to see the **AAs going after libraries for copyright infringement. After all, if I buy a CD and loan it to a friend to copy, I'm a "pirate" according to them, so how is a library that exists to do exactly that any different?

Originally Posted by rembo666

Since then, I've been sticking to pirated music (allofmp3.com rules!) and haven't bought a CD in a couple of years.

Ditto. I used to use Walmart.com and put up with the burn / rip cycle to get my music to play across my network, but eventually they shot themselves in the foot as far as I was concerned.

One day I went to download some music from them and I got an error message saying "Your operating system is not supported, please upgrade to Windows XP". Well, see, that's odd, because I was using XP, the 64 bit flavor specifically. So I tired it on my laptop and got another error message saying "Your browser is not supported. THis site can only be accessed using Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher".

That morning I made the first of many deposits in my allofmp3.com account and I will use it until they finally manage to shut it down at which time I'll probably go to torrents. I'm happy to pay for music, even at a buck a song, but I WILL NOT jump through their hoops to download or listen to it.

[Pookeyhead]

I'm afraid, as always, this article, and others like it are preaching to the choir.. it's a pity this article couldn't get a wider audience, and be read by the average consumer in teh street, who to be honest, doesn't give a rat's ass, or even care about DRM. The average person is also the one who's content to pay an exorbitant price for their petrol, and other essential items. While a small percentage of media savvy people like us complain, there's a massive army of hungry consumers that will just buy what's the most fashionable, so why should they listen to us?

Same old story really.

When the true unfairness of DRM gets more general publicity.. when Trevor McDonald does an article on it, then you'll probably see change. Sony's rootkit fiasco publicised the whole DRM issue to some extent, but Joe Public still doesn't get the big picture.

I think most people, if the price was right, would pay to download. I would. After all, libraries haven't ruined book sales. DVD rental hasn't harmed DVD sales.

Large companies will push the outside of the legal envelope as far as they can to increase profit - why are we suprised by this everytime it happens? Because 90% of people aren't aware they're being ripped off usually. By the time Joe Public does, the company(ies) concerned have usually earned enough to recoup a fair chunk of their R&D costs anyway. It's a fair gamble for them, so you can't be truly surprised about any of this... it is after all, about chapter 4 in an ongoing story.

Home Taping DIDN'T kill music... the home VCR did NOT kill the movie industry, and I'm damned sure downloading music, legally, fairly, and with a DRM mechanism that allows you to play your files on ANY player won't kill the music industy.

It's our duty to educate people, and stear them away from manufacturers that are abusing our rights the most. Sooner or later I'm confident we'll have a fair DRM system that protects the media without infinging our rights.... but I'm an optomist so I would say that :-)

[_ViC_]

The best article on DRM I read up to date. Because it shows DRM as not totally evil or not totally necessary, but as an undeniable fact of modern media distribution. And I agree DRM has to be standardised, the sooner the better.

And good point, Pookeyhead