Ask Slashdot: Are There Any Good Reasons For DRM? 684
centre21 writes "Having been on Slashdot for several years, I've seen a lot of articles concerning DRM. What's most interesting to me are the number of comments condemning DRM outright and calling for the abolishing DRM with all due prejudice. The question I have for the community: is there ever a time when DRM is justified? My focus here is the aspect of how DRM protects the rights of content creators (aka, artists) and helps to prevent people freely distributing their works and with no compensation. How would those who are opposed to DRM ensure that artists will get just compensation for their works if there are no mechanisms to prevent someone from simply digitally copying a work (be it music, movie or book) and giving it away to anyone who wants it? Because, in my eyes, when people stop getting paid for what they do, they'll stop doing it. Many of my friends and family are in the arts, and let me assure you, one of the things they fear most isn't censorship, it's (in their words), 'Some kid freely distributing my stuff and eliminating my source of income.' And I can see their point. So I reiterate, to those who vehemently oppose DRM, is there ever a time where DRM can be a force for good, or can they offer an alternative that would prevent the above from happening?"
Real reason for DRM (Score:5, Informative)
This was posted a while ago as "real reason for drm".
https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 [google.com]
TL;DR: control hardware manufacturers, not consumers.
Re:Lots of good reasons. (Score:5, Informative)
No DRM means no income for the artist.
We know this isn't true. Look at the music industry, now look at your post, now look back at the music industry.
Is it dead? No. It's still a multi-billion dollar industry. But I can legally buy any song I want without drm. Hasn't killed them.
Re:Art doesn't need remuneration (Score:5, Informative)
The creation of art is not, nor ever has been, dependent on remuneration. People don't exclusively create to be compensated. People have always created things. It's what we do.
As a creator, I can tell you that my art is extremely dependent on remuneration. When I get paid enough for my work, I can do it full time, 10 or 12 or 14 hours a day, 7 days a week.
When I get paid a pittance, I have to do my work in my spare time, while I'm waiting on tables or something to pay the bills, and I can't do as good a job.
My work is a lot better when I do it full time than when I have to squeeze it into 4 hours in the early morning before I leave for my real job.
After a few months or years of juggling a schedule like this, a lot of people don't have the energy to create any more. Once you add the time and cost of raising a family, something has to go. Unless you abandon your family, the art is going to go.
Perhaps you're thinking of the 18th century, where art was pursued by wealthy gentlemen who didn't have to work. That's a good system for wealthy gentlemen. Unfortunately it leaves out the rest of us. It would be nice if we were all wealthy gentlemen. Unfortunately our economy has been going in the other direction.
More specifically, I have friends who were writers, actors and musicians, not stars but good in their fields, and are now at the end of their career or retired. A lot of them are getting royalties for the work they've done during their 20, 30 or 40 year careers in which they didn't make very much. It's nice to have a royalty or residuals check of $100, $200 or (rarely) $500 a month to supplement your meager Social Security of $1,000 a month or so. It makes the difference between being able to live with some of the comforts of middle-class life, like the difference between a nice apartment and a furnished room. Sure I'd like to be able to hear their music free on the Internet, but I don't like to see them lose their modest income.
Of course, DRM doesn't work, it's easy to get around, and they are going to lose their modest income, whether it's right or wrong. I don't know about the big picture or long-term consequences, but the little picture of these guys here and now is it seems like an awful shame.
Re:Lots of good reasons. (Score:5, Informative)
No DRM means no income for the artist.
Right. Without DRM no-one would be able to make money selling CDs.
Wait a minute...
Re:Lots of good reasons. (Score:5, Informative)
So, how do we compensate artist without DRM?
Well, in order to answer this question, you have to consider the fact that the DRM is broken on literally every big name movie in existence. Anyone who wants to pirate their movies already can. So in answer to your question, we compensate artists without DRM the same way we do right now -- we pay them. The lack of DRM doesn't make it legal to distribute copies, and it doesn't make it particularly easier (since DRM-free copies of movies already exist and are easily available).
DRM doesn't give the publisher any additional rights -- it only takes away the rights of paying customers, specifically:
Those are the only rights truly being "managed" by DRM, and they're being "managed" away so that legitimate consumers have to pay for the same media multiple times, or (in some cases) pay more for existing media since they can't purchase it used.
Re:"good reasons" that donb't hold up (Score:5, Informative)
There is an economic analysis out there (sorry, don't have the URL at my fingertips) that compares book authorship/publishing/reading in strict-copyright 19th century England with no-copyright 19th century Germany.
I've only started reading it, but perhaps this is the source you're referring to: No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion? [spiegel.de]
The profts are not declining. (Score:3, Informative)
The movie industry keeps parading highest grossing films ever.
The music labels get more and more profit.
Declining sales? Well, we've also seen over the 30 years increasing DRM and reduction in consumer rights.
Ever think of looking there?
Re:Lots of good reasons. (Score:3, Informative)
DRM is more about controlling reproduction than enforcing end of life.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
DRM is all about enforcing end of life on digital objects. If you have a system to enforce end of life you automatically have a system to control reproduction. The reverse however is not true. That is you can control reproduction (for instance by watermarking the digital file with the customer's information and making it so that the customer is legally responsible with the unauthorized distribution of said file.). And all this without any kind of DRM.
The entertainment industries want control way above what the copywrite act gives them. And unfortunately technology (and bribed politicians) have given them this power. If you "buy" a digital file that is DRM infested you have no control over it. You DO NOT OWN IT.
In fact you're buying what is for all intents and purposes a time limited "lease" on the digital object. Authentication servers go offline in 2 years ? Tough shit your 60$ games won't work anymore. You though you could bequeath all those games, and ebooks to your son in 40-50 years ? Tough luck doing it. Etc...
The entertainment industries are pushing like mad towards a world were you the customer OWN JACK SHIT. And DRM gives them this power. So no, the use of DRM is never justified. And as certain examples have shown (drm free music, free video's etc...) you can sell DRM free items without problem.
Re:Lots of good reasons. (Score:5, Informative)
Sales of CDs and music are falling world.
[citation needed]
Oh, you don't have any? Well, I do: First article I found in a very simple Google search; article by Huffington Post [huffingtonpost.com]
The report found that total music purchases (physical albums, digital albums and digital songs) totaled an all-time high of 1.65 billion units in 2012, a rise of 3.1 percent over 2011.
Well, looks like you're wrong on the broad scope of music sales, for sure.
Unsurprisingly, physical music continued its yearly decline, with sales down by 12.8 percent in 2012. Despite this big drop -- including a 13 percent drop in CD sales -- physical remained the dominant format for music purchases, the study found.
Ok, that one supports your side, but only taken out of the context of my last post (except that you're point that CD sales are dropping--seems to be being replaced by digital and vinyl to make up for it, though).
Vinyls saw sales growth for the fifth straight year in 2012, with a 17.7 percent surge complementing 4.6 millions records sold.
Definitely against your point of music sales falling. Vinyl is blowing up.
While physical continued its decline, digital sales of music continued to rise in 2012. Thanks in large part to digital music stores on iTunes and Amazon, digital music's 9.1 percent growth meant the format accounted for 37 percent of all album purchases during the year.
Again, music sales rising. Just in a different format. This time, digital.
The positive sales figures have temporarily quelled some of the debate over whether streaming services like Spotify, Pandora or Rdio are killing the music industry. According to Greg Sandoval at CNET, the Nielsen figures don't actually take into account plays or revenue generated from streaming or subscription services, or from satellite or web radio. That's not to say streaming services didn't have a tremendous year too: Spotify racked up 5 million paying subscribers this year, and Pandora saw a record number of listener hours logged on its service.
Well. You don't think that's making up for the dropping CD sales at all, either? Because it most definitely does. Many people listen to Spotify, Pandora, Rdio, etc. instead of buying any of their music directly. Music companies are still making money off of that, while total music sales are growing not even accounting for that.
Sales of CDs and music are falling world.
No source to back up this claim (or any of your other claims for that matter), and the only valid point based on the very first source (which is citing from a Nielsen's Report study, which tends to be a pretty reliable source for these things) is that CD sales are dropping. Otherwise, music sales in general seem to be on the rise.