When Would You Accept DRM? 1288
twigles asks: "Following on the heels of Apple closing DVD Jon's end run around its DRM and a British TV station offering DRM'd downloads it seems fair to ask, what DRM would you accept as a consumer? Personally, I take the view that if a song, movie, book, etc. is DRM'd then it isn't truly mine. On the other hand, if a particular piece of digital media is priced correctly (a la' rental fee) would that be satisfactory, or do you feel that DRM in any form is ridiculous?"
Never (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Never (Score:3, Insightful)
The pretense is that every media container you own - CD, DVD, book, magazine, etc - is a licensed copy of that type of media alone. You do not have the right of use for the exact same content in another form.
This is all nonsense, of course. And we have let them build a business on the nonsense for far too long.
I have long since drawn my own line in the sand.
Re:Never (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I take the view that if a song, movie, book, etc. is DRM'd then it isn't truly mine
Exactly. You didn't write the song, make the move, etc. If you want to own the content, create it or pay someone to create. It cost more than $.99 a song, or $19.99 a movie. From the parent:
The pretense is that every media container you own - CD, DVD, book, magazine, etc - is a licensed copy of that type of media alone. You do not have the right of use for the exact same content in another for
Re:Never (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems fair to me.
P.S. I dont think the parent you are replying to mentioned anything about the theft you keep bandying around.
Re:Never (Score:5, Insightful)
If I buy something it should be mine, I should be able to dictate the terms I use it on, I should be able to resell. I should be able to trade media with another store or a friend.
I can't stand renting everything digitally for the rest of my life. Now is the time for the consumer to stand up or we will lose all our rights in the digital world.
Re:Never (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want to let you borrow a CD, you can. If I want to let you borrow something I've downloaded off Napster Express, well, we're both screwed.
DRM now? Sure. I won't buy it- that's me voting with my wallet. However, when the content providers decide to provide everything in DRMed format, and electronics manufacturers only provide DRM-ready equipment, its game over. Your parents and grandparents had a better deal.
Re:Never (Score:5, Interesting)
And just when did it change to this?? In the past, when I bought cassettes, albums...and as I knew...CD's...I was NOT buying a license to use it. I was buying a piece of media and buying my copy of the material contain upon it, to do with it as I pleased within fair use usage, and copyright restraints. Now, that you can digitially store it...they're changing it to a license? Where and when did this happen?
I don't know about you...but, I've never agreed to any license...hell, ever seen a EULA on an album or CD?
Re:Never (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Never (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody owns the actual song. Someone may own the copyright to the song, but that is just ownership of temporary government sponsored monopolistic rights, not ownership of the song itself. Further, there is plenty of precedence stating that when you buy a copy of a song or other work protected by copyright you own that copy of the work in question. That is the first sale doctrine, and generally it's been upheld that if someone claims they're selling something to you they _are_ in fact selling something to you, no matter how they wish to later claim licensing or rental. Your rights to do what you wish with your property may however be curtailed by someones copyright, but you are still the owner of that property.
"So your proposal is to stop allowing people to profit from their creations?"
There's a difference between allowing people to profit from their creations and allowing derived monopolies to expand indefinitely, thus severely damaging the free market. Copyright is meant to compensate the creator of a work, not huge inefficient corporations with whatever expenses they can generate. And it's becoming woefully obvious that the intellectual monopolies are our economies version of the Soviet factories. Only when you have a monopoly can you let your expenses grow to hundreds or thousands of times what the actual production cost is.
Patents and copyright need to be drastically revised to compensate _only_ the actual creative work.
License Agreement? (Score:3, Insightful)
But I didn't agree to any license. I went to the store, they offered a CD or DVD for sale for a price, I accepted the offer and paid the price and took the disc home. That is the entire agreement. Why should I need a license to listen to or watch the disc I bought? Why should I need a license to rip it to
Yes
You Believe in a Lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright law today rarely protects the financial interests of the people who created the work. It mostly protects the financial interests of the distributor who do not fairly compensate the artists. The artists themselves do not have the right to copy their own works. This is why all media publishing industries are so screwed right now. I remember when I was back in audio production school, I was told that most employers in the music business consider all work that you do (even at home on your own equipment) to be their property. This is written into the employment contract. Doesn't sound like a way to protect the interests of the people who are actually creating the works. If the creators of a work want to profit from their creation, they are far better going it alone and utilizing the power of today's technology for distribution. At worst, they could gain some notoriety if their work is any good. But as soon as they sign up with a label, they are going to get screwed. The statement you made hat I am nit-picking should be phrased:
So your proposal is to stop allowing the major labels/motion picture distributors to profit from their acquisitions?
If you were an artist, you'd "get it". Sound to me like you're a "suit" or a wannabe business person.
Re:Never (Score:5, Insightful)
That exactly is the problem!! The record companies are changing the paradigm. In the past...when buying cassettes, albums and CDs....you were buying the media and a copy of the music contained...to use as you wanted within fair use rights. You were NEVER considered buying a license to use it...but, you owned your copy to do with as you pleased...within copyright law (as you alluded to in your comment about doing this with no profit involved.)/
Now, just because the music is digital...they're trying to say, no, you don't buy your copy...you buy a license to USE it...which can be revoked at any time.
This is what's wrong...and I believe, the center of much of the controversy. They're changing what you purchase. And if we don't fight this...it will become the norm.
I've said it before..."What one generation accepts...the next generation embraces"
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Do It Yourself (and make everyone happy) (Score:5, Interesting)
Perfect example: With recording, mastering, CD production, and printing - I can put out 1000 CDs @ $1.74USD each. We are as small as it gets - only 6 bands, two active people working on projects, and only 829 results on google [google.com]. With only two releases under our belt we are a little nobody punkrock label that very few people outside the Tampa Bay area has ever heard of. If I can do it at $1.74USD per CD I know for a fact any "major" label can do it much cheaper. (Yes, I have factored in costs of distribution. I have world-wide distribution at my disposal, it's cheaper then you might think.)
One of the most active bands on my label decided that they wanted to sell every new CD they make for $5 each, then when they release something new they put the old CD on the net in mp3 format for free. Their fans have the option of downloading every track on the CD for free (DRM is never an option for our digital releases) and burning it OR they can pay $5 for a CD with the printed lyrics, pictures, and other info you would typically see in a CD insert.
The majority of fans choose to do both - have the music on their computer AND purchase a CD. They know the price is fair as it's easy to see we are not out to make money off the band by charging $15 to $20 for $1.74 worth of "work".
Fans generally want to support the band they like but at the same time they don't want to get ripped off. I guarantee that if you ask any member of a band on my label how they feel about working with us they will have nothing negative to say about how we do things. Music is the most important part to us, not making money - when the bands see that and the fans see that everyone is happy.
If the major record labels were to drop the CD/LP prices by 50% piracy would drop significantly. While the public might not know about the record labels and what happens to the bands, they DO know when they are getting ripped off.Any major label could do the same as I do if they were more worried about music then money, we all know that will never happen.
Re:Never (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Never (Score:5, Insightful)
Actualy only as rights of first sale are not messed up. The price on DVD's and the fact I can pass them on and they will play in the next guy's machine is the only reason I buy DVD's. The broken right of first sale is what killed Circuit City's implimentation even though the price was lower.
Nobody wants to buy a movie with an expiration date.
Re:Never (Score:3, Interesting)
I went round after round with the managers at CC when I worked there on this. When DIVX was failing corporate put pressure on store managers to push it more. They in turn put pressure on us to push DIVX. I told my manager that I'd obey any directive that he gave me, but I wouldn't lie. So if any customer asked me if I was going to buy one, I'd have to tell them no. If they then asked WHY, I'd have t
Re:Never (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Never (Score:3, Funny)
Personally I hate DRM but I think I will find it hard to not accept when I graduate Harvard Law and get hired by the RIAA to try 2 cases per year against people that I rat out b/c they were jerks in college.
I believe I'll start with a few of the professors fond of classical music......
Re:Never (Score:4, Informative)
BEcause of the Internet, we don't need a comemrcial circuit, we need communication aver what is being made.
That's why I created GNUArt [gnuart.org]: To give creators a possibility to get their stuff circulating with no restrictions other than ensuring their contribution would remain known as theirs.
Now, if the gallery [gnuart.net] gained popularity it would help benevolents distributing their creations.
Re:Never (Score:5, Informative)
Don't be so sure of that.
From DNA Lounge blog [dnalounge.com]:
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the same service can be offered with open MP3 or OGG files.
>Or how about DRM allows video producers to have a video be playable only from their web site and for a certain amount of time before it expires?
But I don't want that! I want to be able to download and save video I view on the net. Web sites don't stick around forever, and if you see something cool, there's no guarantee it'll be there tomorrow. Therefore, I want to be able to save it.
I have archives of several pages that I wouldn't be able to see anymore if I hadn't been able to save. We must not let DRM-proponents get their way, because if they do, media archives will be a thing of the past. Look at archive.org and the prelinger archives -- if all those movies had been DRMed and expired, we wouldn't have them today, right?
DRM is evil. Sorry, no ifs, ands, or buts here.
-Z
Why does everything have to be absolute? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hesitate to post a counter-opinion, since doing so on these threads seems to be worth about (-2, I Disagree So You're A Troll), but what the hell. ;-)
What if the alternative is not being able to download legally at all? I don't know whether it's officially acknowledged or not, but it's a good bet that legit services like Napster's or Apple's are only allowed to distribute the content by the recording industry after agreeing to apply DRM technology to it. If they gave up, or the DRM proved to be ineffective, there probably wouldn't be any legal download services at all. At that stage, some people reading this may be quite happy to break the law and risk becoming a statistic/example case so they could still download music, but a lot of people would lose out through being unwilling to commit a crime.
Not everything in this world comes down to absolute ownership. The rental model has been working well for videotapes for years: if you just want to watch a film once, but don't want to keep the tape, you can pay a smaller amount but you have to give it back a couple of days later. Most of the arguments in posts like the parent would basically rule out such a model, despite the fact that it is welcomed by many and of benefit to them.
And I know two people, completely independently, who had trouble securing book publishing deals after draft content that they put on their web site temporarily for the benefit of those who were interested wound up republished (without their consent, or even notifying them) on so-called archive sites that have decided they are above copyright law (which I suspect may become an expensive mistake the first time they try this with a megacorp).
Neither of these people publishes anything whatsoever on the web any more, because the resulting tedious negotiations with their publisher's lawyers over distribution rights just aren't worth it. Ultimately, it's not the authors who have lost out here, it's the people who were benefitting from having their content at a much cheaper rate. That was the very distribution of work that copyright and similar concepts are intended to promote, and when copyright wasn't respected, it stopped. Go figure...
Re:Why does everything have to be absolute? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason that model worked is because the content producers had a cartel that allowed them to charge an unrealistically high price for new movies on videocassette: $100+ per copy. No home user was gonna pay that much per movie, so rental (from a middleman who swallowed the high initial cost and recouped it was the only feasible market model.
When DVD came along, Warner Bros. Home Video president Warren Lieberfarb had the vision [ultimateavmag.com] to see that they could make a lot more money with a sales model and realistic pricing than they were through the rental model. So he led Warner to break with the cartel and push DVD as a sell-through format at the $10-20 price point. He took a lot of flak from the rest of the industry for that, but when the money started to roll in for Warner it wasn't long before the rest of the cartel followed suit.
Today, the studios make more money off Lieberfarb's model than they do at the box office on many movies, and rental behemoths like Blockbuster Inc. are seeing their value plummet [yahoo.com]. So it's pretty clear that in this example, when given a choice between rentals and reasonably priced sale copies, people prefer to buy over renting.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
So we're supposed to accept DRM because they somehow feel entitled to our money? Oxygen is freely available too. If it were't, someone would be charging for it. That doesn't mean that some chemical company is entitled to a subsidy, tax, or other business structure to prop up their failing business because no-one is willing to pay for their freely-available Oxygen product.
My prediction: Artists will make
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple has placed DRM on iTunes songs. This is not a subsidy. Not a tax. It is a business model. If you don't like it, then don't support it. It's that simple. Nobody is forcing you to listen to music that you have to pay for. You can go and listen to free music. If you don't think it's as good, then maybe there's also something wrong with the business model of "giving stuff away for free".
I'm not saying that I don't want to live in a world where I can download my music for free (legally). But the way to get there isn't to bitch about capitalists trying to earn a living. The way to get there is to do something about it.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with "DRM" is that it will never work. The way to sell content is to make it easily available for anyone to buy at a fair price. Such that buying becomes the "easy option".
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Get a brain.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
So what are these great uses of DRM?
THIS is NOT insightful its bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unacceptable they can offer the same service without DRM...DRM is NOT a requirement for doing business. If the companies like Napster refused to give in to the record companies we would not be in this situation. It comes down to this...you can either sell the music through this service without DRM and trust the consume
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
But the owners love it!
So unless you're planning a glorious uprising of the working classes, then we'd better get used to it.
The DRM I'm willing to accept os the DRM that I won't even notice. Like the one on the iTMS seem to be. I never bought any of their wares, but from the list, I could burn any of my music, and move is to another computer without problems.
DRM that doesn't get in the way of fair use is acceptable.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
The copyright holders love it, not the owners.
The copyright holders love it because it gives them control over the owners of the media.
I think you are talking about "intellectual property owners." This is why the phrase "intellectual property" is a misleading one because it tricks folks into thinking that intangible things are the same as tangible things when they are not.
If I buy a cd or a dvd, I am its owner, nobody else. If I download from an online music store, I am paying for a service. In either case, nobody else "owns" anything I have paid for.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
He's not a hyprocrite; he's exactly right. You can't own music. You can't own the words in a book. You can't own a movie. You can own copies of all those things, and/or you can own the copyright on all those things. When I buy a DVD, I own the DVD, and I own the copy of the content on that DVD. What I do not own is the copyright on that content. The ownership of the two is distinct, and an interest in one does not in any way affect an interest in the other. Just read section 202 of US copyright law:
Re:Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but I do own my copy of that song.
* you don't OWN all rights on the content on that disc, only those rights copyright holder grants to you.
I don't own all the rights on the content, true.
I own more that just what they grant me though. They can grant me any rights that copyright takes away by default, but any other rights I have already.
Think of it as a venn diagram with sets A, B, C
A is the set of all rights.
B is the set of rights copyright law removes. (and is
Re:Yes (Score:3, Informative)
* you don't OWN all rights on the content on that disc, only those rights copyright holder grants to you.
WRONG!!! I have all rights that the copyright system of my country allows me, as well as any additional rights that the copyright holder may grant me. That's what "fair use" is, and, here in the U.S.A. at least, it specifically states that I can make copies for personal use or my personal "archive" of music (which ha
I'll answer for slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
- It's not right for content creators/originators/owners/licensors to expect to be able to protect their content; if their content needs protection, their business model is dying;
- All "information" and "ideas", which includes music, software, text, and other unique works, should be allowed to freely flow between people in an unlimited fashion without any encumbrances of ownership;
- DRM is fundamentally flawed and is only used as a tool of the rich and powerful to forcefeed commercial tripe to the masses;
- In the digital realm, ideas of "ownership" and "theft" are meaningless. The world has changed, and unlimited digital copies of all manner of content can be distributed nearly free and without any harm to or detraction from the original. Therefore, any old model based on physical manifestations (books, CDs, DVDs, etc.) is dead.
Re:I'll answer for slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
I take it you aren't a fan of the GPL then. Take what you said to it's logical conclusion and the GPL becomes too restrictive even for you.
Re:I'll answer for slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as the protecting freedom of speech means protecting speech you hate, protecting an open sharing society means sharing with people who don't want to share it forward. Once you share something, you should not have any control over what the recipient does with it. Sure, somebody might try to sell your code, but that doesn't diminish your ideas, nor does it diminish the ability of others to build and share.
I'm not pushing this concept, I'm just saying that some people definitely feel this way. Any opinion is a valid opinion, even when you don't agree with it.
Re:I'll answer for slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
I could live with DRM'ed content if, as the article mentions, it is priced comparatively to a rental fee. However, if physical media were to go the way of the dodo and consumers were expected to accept DRM'ed downloads in lieu of owning physical media they could (by right) copy and manipulate for personal use, I don't think that would be an acceptable outcome. Several people mentioned last night that purchasing media give the purchaser rights to resell, copy, etc. Now if an EULA explicitly restricts you from doing these things and you still accept it, that's your problem. But if the day comes that consumers are given no choice (i.e. their rights to copy for personal use are negated by the fact that the only available format for purchase removes these rights), that's when DRM will start to smell funny to me.
Just my 2cents, and FWIW it seems like I fall somewhere in between daveschroeder's opinion, and the opinion of many other slashdotters who commented on the 'DVD Jon' story last night. But like you suggested dave, I do not patronize iTMS for the specific reason that DRM is not worth circumventing if the same media can be purchased on formats that don't restrict my personal choices.
Don't answer for me, Argentina (Score:3, Insightful)
- All "information" and "ideas", which includes music, software, text, and other unique works, should be allowed to freely flow between people in an unlimited fashion without any encumbrances of ownership;
A question... with these two statements, are you offering government or societal subsidy for content creators? Authors, art
Re:I'll answer for slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. I shelled out $5 for Debian on CD. I should be able to do whatever I want with it, including redistribute only the binaries to people, without any source code. Or modify the source code, build binaries, and ship only those binaries to people. Why not? I paid for it. Who the hell is this Stallman guy who thinks he can tell me what I get to do with something I bought? Sounds like another Jack Valenti to me.
Seriously, the "It's mine I paid for it, fuck you" attitude doesn't work in civilized society. There is a concept of "fair use" - sure, it's gone out the window in recent years, but it was called "fair use" for a reason. It wasn't called "fuck you, mr. artist".
Re:I'll answer for slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting, yes. Insightful, no. (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not agree, however, that, "In the digital realm, ideas of "ownership" and "theft" are meaningless." and I'm willing to bet that a lot of /.'ers don't agree as well. Even the hallowed GPL depends on foundations of digital ownership, for without these common rules it simply would not be enforceable. Copyright law has been around longer than digital me
Re:I'll answer for slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
First, you need to be careful defining what you "own". If I rent/lease a car I can't do anything I want with it. Even if I own the car, I can't use it in a reckless manner or give it to someone to use in a crime. If I rent a DVD from a store I can't do anything I want with it. For example, I am not allowed to melt the DVD itself or scratch it so it is unusable.
As to your second point, there is a lot of software that is hideously complex and expensive to create and cannot just b
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll answer for slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
You think it's easy to do music full time while keeping a day job? There IS a life outside Slashbot-land. I think you need a change of perspective.
Re:I'll answer for slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
That would be pretty neat, but it would cost an unimaginable amount.
Frankly, I can be pretty happy watching good, but low budget movies, as I can be watching good, big budget movies. Crappy m
Re:I'll answer for slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but that has nothing to do with DRM. The record companies sold non-DRM vinyl LPs for over 60 years and non-DRm CDs for over 20 years. Not only did the record companies make billions in profits but a lot of musicians got very rich as well.
DRM *IS NOT* about "fight piracy". It *IS NOT* about "protecting intellectual property". The sole purpose of DRM is to fundamentally change the ownership of property that you have legitimately purchased -- "you don't own it, you've merely purchased a license to use it -- but you can only use it in the way that we dictate".
Do you trust your customer based? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Pragmatic Progammers sell the PDFs of their books with no DRM and they seem to be doing okay. That is to say, the books aren't all over Google.
http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/starter_kit/faq s/pdf_faq.html [pragmaticprogrammer.com]
I'll accept it when... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Jesse
My rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, so one more point for "never"?
For myself... You can put DRM on my coffin. The rest, I'll avoid if at all possible and break it if I can't avoid it.
Basically, never... (Score:5, Interesting)
As it is, most content is unbuyable now, anyway, so I don't even buy that much. (I haven't bought a CD in years, and a DVD in months.) Media companies need to start making intelligent music and shows, and then let me do what I want with it. If they want income streams, fine - sell me a subscription. But if you're going to do that, and I'm willing to buy, then don't restrict how I use it.
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen (Score:3, Insightful)
Truer words were never spoken. The original purpose of patents was to encourage innovation. The modern purpose is to build monopoly and to discourage innovation because it threatens existing monopolies.
A "good" use of DRM is to identify the true source of a file, payment being only one of the reasons to so. But the "modern" purpose is to deliberately infringe on fair-use rights, ultimately denying them.
Purchase or rent (Score:5, Interesting)
If I am renting music, for example paying $20/month for all I can listen to, then I can accept pretty much any DRM because I don't expect the music to be "mine". If something goes wrong with my DRM I would just switch to a different service and for $20/month have unlimited listening rights again.
Note that, for me, it's not worth $20/month to listen to music on my computer. I already have plenty of music I own on my computer, and there are free alternatives for radio-style listening.
But I get that it's a worthwhile proposition for some people.
Re:Purchase or rent (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM should not be used in situations where the media itself is replacing physical media - buying music on
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Want what I pay for (Score:4, Insightful)
However, if it's used to enforce a rental or temporary use of something, and that's what I'm agreeing to pay for, no problem.
But again, if you are trying to sell me something that is broken, I won't be buying. FYI: If everybody made their purchases this way, there would be no such thing as DRM. In my opinion, iTMS users have done serious damage by undermining expected fair use by accepting these purchases.
None. (Score:5, Insightful)
Computers are not like cable boxes or satellite receivers, or even DVD players. They are our most fundamental and important devices of communication. To surrender control over those devices to others is a mistake we should pay for dearly...
Re:None. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:None. (Score:3, Interesting)
Quick answer: no (Score:3, Insightful)
But I don't think we'll really have a choice in the future. If there's one thing companies hate, it's lawsuits, and they'll do anything to avoid them, including implementing DRM.
You probably already do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I don't really care that much about DRM, as long as it's designed well, like the iTMS. I don't know if I "own" the songs or not, but I don't really care - it's never really restricted what I've wanted to do with my music. And if they do make it hard, I'll just find a crack to get around it.
DRMs MUST be banned. (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember a call from a friend of mine who remembered that I was knowledgeable in video editing and she contacted me to help her with a problem they had with a student project. (that was back in 1994)
They were student who selected very short extracts of scenes for their project for the last 20 sleepless hours and they wondered why they couldn't make copies of many of their extracts. When I finally arrived all I could do is explaining what was happenning and tell them to find some other scenes (Macrovision had a cyclic effect in which a few seconds would be copied all right) I didn't have any video filter at that time to go around it and it was too late to go and find/build one.
CONCLUSION:
It's simple, DRM prevented those kids to express themselves correctly, it was damaging their possibility to create.
Now, with DRMs much more insinous than Macrovision nowadays just try to imagine the artists who have been prevented to express themselves, imagine also the art forms that have been crushed before their own existences by these DRMs.
DRM is bad, it is evil, it MUST be banned for the sake of the human spirit.
( it's the second time I put this story in
Never. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't really the restrictions now -- I will gladly grand the copyright holder the right to control the (re-)distrobution of their product. Copyright doesn't, and shouldn't, control or limit use, which a lot of DRM/copy protection does, and that I do object to. But having iTMS want to limit P2P reproduction -- to me, that's fair.
To me, the issue is instead what happens 150 years from now -- they copyright has expired, but Rights Manglement never dies....Let me tell you why I am okay with it (Score:3, Insightful)
Not mine? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not mine? (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is philosophical to a point (Score:5, Insightful)
"I understand the need..." (Score:3, Informative)
I think that expecting the record companies to stop their price fixing is unrealistic. They've already settled one case out of court for peanuts, so of course they're going to do it again.
Unacceptable in any form (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM is unacceptable to me in any form. It's basic premise is that consumers are untrustworthy and/or criminals.
In effect, it states I don't have control of my property, and logically means to me I don't own it.
I DO have products that are DRM'd, today (Apple iTunes). The only saving grace of which is that I can burn them to CD and be rid of the DRM.
I purchased almost 2000 CD's in my youth. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should I continue to support an industry which (a) treats me like a crook and (b) won't give me what I want?
What do I want? Digital music files that I can play, store, and convert however the hell I want to. I paid for the right to use the music -- GIVE ME THAT RIGHT.
DRM by any other name (Score:3, Interesting)
As for Jon's end run around Apple's DRM (twice), I applaud his efforts. It certainly shows that DRM can't stand up to people who want to control the things they buy. I no more want my music to be limited to a single computer or iPod in my house than I want to be limited to what TV I can watch movies on or which DVD player I can play a DVD on.
Grew up with CD's and LaserDiscs, can't accept DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Not me. My teenage years were in the 1980's, where I was able to purchase -- legally -- "perfect" quality CDs and high quality (for NTSC, anyway) LaserDiscs, both free of copy protection. Both CDs and LaserDiscs were touted to last a lifetime, and even though that's not true, the lack of copy protection enabled lifetime chain copying to preserve the recording for personal use.
I grew up accustomed to, after hearing or seeing something I liked, purchasing it, and playing it back at any time for one of two purposes: a) reflecting upon its content, b) recalling the time and place where I originally heard or saw the recording, for the purposes of sentimentality.
I've said it many times, and almost always get modded down, but I'll say it again. I consider it a form of mind control for a publisher to present something for my consumption, and then be able to at a later date forbid me from reviewing that material in the time, place, and manner of my choosing.
As I said, I believe this attitude of mine is due in part to my Gen X demographic. Baby boomers and older -- those presumably running XXAA -- grew up not expecting reviewing capability. Baby boomlets grew up expecting stuff for free via P2P. Gen X'ers are in the position of expecting lifetime reviewing capability, and expecting to pay a reasonable one-time fee for it.
But demographically, there aren't as many Gen X'ers as baby boomers and baby boomlets. And no one seems to care that books after 1924 are rotting away. So DRM and short memories it will be from now on.
Rotting Music and Games (Score:4, Insightful)
And a majority of the recorded music is rotting away because it isn't available. I too grew up in the 80s. What if I want to listen to a group that I liked, but my tapes are worn out? Can I go out and buy their CD? Maybe, if any store will carry it. There is a lot of good (and bad) music that will be lost because the record companies don't think they can make money on it anymore. They own the right to it, and choose to let it die.
The same goes for lots of things I guess. We are definitely a nostalgia generation. If it weren't for the enthusiast community, a lot of the video games from the 80s would be extinct. I was into arcade video game collecting for a while, and one of my friends (who was into it WAY more than me) cobbled together pieces from several different video game boards to resurrect a game that nobody had anymore in working condition. (Zektor) Now you can play it on MAME. Now you can play LOTS of games on MAME, and big companies had nothing to do with it. Music and movies are the same to some extent, I am afraid. I don't want to hear crap that is on the radio, I would like to hear the old stuff I used to listen to when I was growing up. It is getting harder and harder to find.
It is part of OUR culture, it is still up to us to preserve it.
Re:Grew up with CD's and LaserDiscs, can't accept (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess when copy protection in the music industry started to become an issue...? Right when CD Burners became affordable.
Pricing and product decide.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Physical products should not contain any DRM, but allow for a sales paradigm that a small'ish fee and a download allows for limited DRM or other revenue genterating ideas for the content provider.
$1.00 movie downloads, free TV show downloads with ads built-in.
Or have a quality/price ratio.
piss-poor = free
56k stream = $0.99 / video
128k stream = $1.50
T1 = $2.00
DVD = $20 + ability to rip/store and view *for personal useage only*
Movie companies want you to goto the theater & buy a ticket and then buy the DVD. How many people here can attest to d'loading a crappy cam version of a film and then wanting the "extra-value" that the theater experience offers?
I know I do all the time. I use cam downloads as my person movie critic Roger & Fatbert.
It has also saved me from wasting my money.
With the exception of bandwidth costs (And there are alternative methods that could be looked into) they have nothing to loose.
Too many times companies are stuck in the same mindset of: It has worked well for the last 100 years, why should we change now?
Hmm, dinosaurs. Fossil-Fuel.
rise-lather-repeat
To paraphrase (Score:3, Funny)
Question of the object's value (Score:5, Interesting)
DRM is OK if... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that the content providers are happy with having to do this.
I would accept DRM if:
* I find price is reasonable
* Does not impose restrictions on my personal use
* DRM Expires after a reasonable time
70 years after the death of the artist does not seem reasonable to me - I happen to like stuff created by people who died 69 years ago
There is no reason that music, text books etc. should be free, just as there is no reason that software should be free. The creator may choose either, and the consumer must then choose whether to support non-free content.
If I create something, then I can choose the conditions under which I will make it available, and you can choose whether you find it valuable enough to accept those conditions.
If ends don't meet then the product disappears - It's that simple.
Quit all that b*** about the companies charging unreasonable high fees - you are free not to use their product.
Just my 5 euro-cents
Erik
BUY v.s. RENT (Score:3, Insightful)
And DRM imposes restrictions as if you were renting or leasing the product. That would be alright if the price on the product was close to zero, but I get offended when someone claims they are selling me something when the product is not sold, but rented.
That being said, I use Linux. There is no way to buy/rent DRM products for Linux users, and I am fairly sure that if it was possible it would not be Open Source. And if you are not willing to show me the source, then I am not going to install it on my system. I require the source, the source ensures FAIR USE. The sum of this is that DRM in any shape or form will never work for me.
DRM Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Commercial DRM I don't support at all. If I buy a CD I expect that CD to play in anything I have for as long as I own that CD. Commercial DRM limits that. The Best Example is Windows XP. Yes I have to register it to use it and it works. Now what happens when MS decides to not support WinXP anymore? Can they guarantee that I can install WinXP and use it 20 years from now?
Both Personal and commercial DRM have issues when it comes to system recovery. I see this problem in WMP now. If you buy music on WMP and WinXP crashes, I hope you backed up your Encryption key, otherwise all your music is now worthless. The same goes with the Encrypting File system in WinXP, although that can be handled and minimized by a Domain server in a business environment.
so in summary:
DRM in my control = Good
DRM in Someone Else's Control = Bad
Fundamentally untenable concept (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM only works if it's supported right down to the hardware, and I fundamentally object to my computer having a different agenda to mine. I will not buy hardware that I'm not in control of, and I view it as irresponsible and invasive to even try to control or artificially limit something I've paid (my) good money for.
If you don't understand this attitude, ask yourself why the government fines people for speeding but doesn't install mandatory speed-limiters in cars, or makes murder illegal but doesn't ban guns outright. Precedents both.
DRM without end-to-end hardware support is essentially impotent unless you are prohibited from cracking it by law. Legislating against technology like this is like legislating against bad weather, or against the tide - it's coming eventually whether you like it or not, and you only look stupid and/or put yourself in harm's way by trying to get between it and where it's going.
(As an aside, can anyone think of an example where a popular technology has been legislated against, and it's died there and then? I honestly can't think of one. In contrast, I can think of several cases where legal proceedings (and the attendant publicity) have launched a new piece of techology into mainstream usage, but I can't think of one counterexample. If anyone else can, please let me know...)
Short version - end-to-end DRM is fundamentally invasive and tramples on your rights as a consumer (First Sale, Fair Use, etc). Vulnerable DRM propped up by dubious lawmaking both cheapens the law and retards technology as a whole (e.g. banning P2P networks unless they pro-actively filter for copyrighted software effectively bands P2P as a useful technology).
DRM represents an attempt to graft concepts and precedent from physical property law onto digital "property". They are not alike, and this sets a false precedent which will (and is) harming both our technological and cultural development.
Slashdot Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
To respond in a general sense to multiple posts:
I'll only allow DRM on rentals, not on purchases
Reasonable - if you purchase, you have first sale right, format shifting rights, reverse engineering, etc. However, you have no right to distribute. People do distribute, however, and DRM is a reasonable way of stopping or limiting that. Another would be remove the DRM, but watermark all files with a generic tag, and have all ISPs monitor your uploads, looking for that tag - and when you do, they immediately notify the feds and shut off your stream. Would that be reasonable?
DRM is never acceptable. All ideas should be free
Which is a great idea, if ideas never cost money to implement. But, because they do (Pixar's multi-million dollar renderfarm, an author's bills as they take a year to write a novel, a programmer's Fritos and Coke as they program a new game), idea creators need to be subsidized for their ideas. Either that can be society or government subsidizing them (would you accept that? Or would that be too much like "communism" for most people?) or by charging consumers, which is our current system. DRM allows them to retain control such that consumers have to pay for use - which subsidizes the artist and pays their expenses.
Removing DRM removes their source of income which removes the incentive to create.
I know most Slashdotters will say "I don't pirate movies, software, or music. I don't distribute it" - in which case, they'll be solidly behind the first idea, right? Or, they will say "I don't want to pay for it, I just want it". In which case, they'll be solidly behind the second idea, right?
TANSTAAFL. Can't get the content if you can't pay the creator.
-T
Limited life of DRM schemes (Score:3, Insightful)
I am okay for short lifespans. If I rent a video from the local BlockBusters I am perfectly okay with a DRM scheme that blocks access after a fixed period of time.
Over the long run I have see many problems:
1. Lifespan of companies like the new Napster. The music is only playable as long as Napster is around to authenticate the DRM scheme. Napster goes out of business and its dead.
2. Lifespan of the DRM scheme. If I buy (not rent) a title, the DRM scheme better allow me to use it as long as I have it. I don't want to find out its not compatible with Windows 2020 or Linux 10.4, and told I have to buy a new version.
3. Valid expiry dates. If a title has a copyright expiry date of say March 1, 2054, then the DRM should reflect this, not 2038 (UNIX time_t value) which I expect to be around for, or infinite (which means the title will be copyrighted well after the Sun goes nova).
I think the original poster touched on it (Score:3, Interesting)
When I pop into Blockbuster to rent a DVD for £3, I understand that I've got his film to watch for a couple of nights and then I have to return it.
People don't protest against this, I've never heard of anybody refusing to rent films as they have to return them.
We're also used to the model of buying CDs and DVDs. I go into a shop, I give them some money and they give me a piece of entertainment to take home and put on my shelf. It's mine. I can make a thousand copies of the CD and rip it to any format I want, whenever I want. In reality I can't remember the last time I copied a CD and I just rip it once to m4a - but I know I have the option to if a friend wants it, or I upgrade to a non-iPod.
The problem with DRM is that it's being offered with similar terms to physical media with additional restrictions imposed and no real advantage. I can buy an album from iTunes or a physical CD - the CD usually works out cheaper, so why on earth would I want a DRMed digital copy?
The two models I can see working for DRM are rental and subscription (or a combination of the two). Firstly we have the Real Rhapsody system up and working - I pay a fixed price and get all the music I want. This is offering me something that wouldn't have been possible with physical media. Secondly we could have a film rental system. For those days I feel lazy and can't even be bothered to leave the house, it'd be nice to be able to download and watch a film for a couple of pounds.
I think my point is that most people have nothing against DRM, it's jus that currently it's not offering us anything better or cheaper than what we currently have.
Am I renting or buying? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I am renting then I do not have a problem with DRM. If I am buying then I do. The only way to protect the consumer who buys in a DRM world is to have a disinterested third party holding the keys should the seller vanish. Even then this is not a great solution as it still means a delay.
The reason DRM exists is because too many people cannot be trusted to not give away COPIES of stuff they do not have the right to distribute copies of. Its the bad apples that make it easy for companies to justify DRM.
I would accept watermarking provided they was an absolute method to track it back to my purchase. A personal watermark that all media I buy online being tagged with would be a better solution. That key would have to be transportable between different types of hardware, have to be unique, and have to have a way I could prove its mine beyond doubt.
if DRM existed, it would be acceptable. (Score:3, Insightful)
Management : acte of managing.
Whose rights exists ?
- Author rights.
- Producer rights.
- Public rights.
Show me a system that manage (not restrict) public rights.
Show me a system that remove all protections once a work fall in the public domain.
Show me a system that help me to parody, or quote, or permit me all fair right uses, no matter where I'm in the world.
No SCDRMS (So called Digital rights management system) manage rights.
Presently, DRM is inexistant. What exist is public perception manipulation and brainwashing. And this, too, is unacceptable.
Why DRM can't work in it's current form (Score:4, Insightful)
The ONLY thing DRM is good at right now is keeping us locked into a device or proprietary service.
I have over 8000 mp3's. Three-quarters of them are ripped from cd's I legally purchased and the last quarter was ripped from friends, downloaded from napster (way back), winmx, or some torrent.
I've been adding to this collection since 1997. Over the years I've listened to it:
-on my home computer
-in my car burned as a standard audio cd
-in my car on a hacked virgin webplayer I mounted to the glove box
-in my car on an mp3-cd player
-at friend's houses streamed with andromeda
-on my archos jukebox
-on my PDA
-on my home stereo through a computer I had hooked up there
-on my home stereo through a D-link networked media player
-on my work computer
-on my laptop while travelling
As far as I'm concerned, that's ALL fair use. I WILL NOT buy music if I don't have the flexibility I had with MP3's. I really love my music, and the ability to play it anywhere with little or no effort. Initial cost aside, if I threw it all away, and bought all my music DRM-protected, how much OF MY TIME do you think I would have to spend TRYING to listen to it in all those places. I'd lose my damn mind fighting with it, and probably STOP listening to music altogether for some time.
From the other side of the fence, I can understand the record companies position. I'm sure those money-grubbing bastards can't sleep at night knowing ppl are listening to music they own for free. I can sympathize with this as I like to protect my own business interests as well, but I think they're going about it the wrong way.
Music is easily traded because there's essentially no difference between the cd I buy in the store, and well encoded mp3's of the album I can download freely. Give us added-value. Start bundling cool stuff in with the cd's we want. Some labels do this to some extent, but not enough. The last 5 cd's I bought retail were purchased because they came with bonus dvd's, booklets, or were some special edition release. I opened up my wallet and gladly dished out the 20 bucks every time.
Where are the Apple zealots? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where are all the Apple zealots now? Just two articles ago were I was reading the spouting of how much they don't mind DRM. How iTMS is so great that they don't mind a little slice of freedom being taken away. How Apple is just sooooo consumer-friendly, and they're trying to convince the record labels to be more digital on our behalf.
It's a lot harder to chime in when the question posed is tantamount to "When is it acceptable to give up your freedom to a company"
Just because Apple says that it's DRM is the best it could do for the consumer and still appease the labels, doesn't mean it's something the consumer should accept.
DRM that implements Copyright Law (Score:3, Interesting)
Both these have problems -- under (1), when the MS Monopoly eventually collapses under its own weight, what will I do with my iTunes music?
And (2) is exceptionally hard to encode as DRM. Gross infringement is fairly easy to deal with -- the case where I take a new music CD under copyright, make a copy of it and sell the copy. But, there are a lot of cases where infringement is not as obvious. Let's say, for example, that the CD contained a mix of public domain stuff and new stuff and I just wanted to extract and copy the public domain items. Or, it was a phonebook and I wanted to copy it. (Under a SCOTUS case, Feist v. Rural, Copyright does not extend to raw collections of facts. A bunch of European countries do have a pseudo-copyright in such works.) Or, I want to make a parody. These things are legal but extremely difficult for DRM software to deal with because it would require the software to look at the intent of what I'm doing.
Rights holders are trying to replace the rules of copyright with the rules of contract -- "I'll let you listen to this music if you agree to only listen to it 10 times." And, the main enabler for this is contracts of adhesion -- those shrink-wrap/click-through agreements that nobody reads but that courts generally enforce. Getting rid of these contracts will break DRM's legal foundation.
When libraries make the next revolutionary step (Score:4, Interesting)
Libraries don't do this because they are reluctant, but - in general law terms - because they are allowed to lend exactly 1 bought book to 1 person at a time, and when they would lend you a digital copy of a book, they could lend a book to 100 people at a time while only having bought 1 piece.
Now with DRM, one could devise a system where you had to "bring back your copy" before anybody else could check it out, therefore combining the digital advantage (speed, ease of use) with the library advantage (big selection, near-zero-price).
So, at least in this case, DRM can actually bring value to the people.
The people have spoken (Score:3, Insightful)
1)DRM is OK as long as they're not Nazi's about your use (like burning CDs from iTMS)
2)If you don't do MP3, you have nothing. (sony)
3)Nobody gives a crap about OGG.
I know these things are painful to hear, but that's what HAS happened. I know some people think of creative work as the common property of all mankind, but [sarcasm] "high quality" [/sarcasm] media production costs big bucks, and they need to recoup that investment. The options to do so are
1)DRM (sorta works)
2)Prevent all digital distribution (didn't work)
3)rethink your business model. (record companies know they are obsolete, this wont happen)
Re:wtf?! (Score:3, Insightful)