Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 19:20 UTC
Legal "DRM is a lie. When an agenda driven DRM infection peddler gets on a soapbox and blathers about how it is necessary to protect the BMW payments of a producer who leeches off the talented, rest assured, they are lying to you. DRM has absolutely nothing to do with protecting content, it is about protecting the wallets of major corporations. The funny thing is they aren't protecting it from you, they are protecting it from each other."
Order by: Score:
AMEN
by ZaNkY on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 19:36 UTC
ZaNkY
Member since:
2005-10-18

AMEN to that article ;)

However, I've never heard it like that, DRM used to "edge EACH OTHER" (companies).

Competition is a bigger motivator than I thought. Still DRM has NO business in people's computers. If you try to limit what I can and can't play, then you are probing into my rights as a human being. THAT IS BAD, and illegal in most cases may I point out ;)

Anyways, I don't buy music with DRM tech, so I'm covered.

--ZaNkY

Reply Score: 5

RE: AMEN
by dylansmrjones on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 19:50 UTC in reply to "AMEN"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, coupled with DMCA we have a violation of the Danish Constitution.

Like Sony's rootkit. Highly illegal in Denmark.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: AMEN
by Ronald Vos on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE: AMEN"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Not just in Denmark.

Also note how Microsoft and Apple each use completely different versions of DRM. If their intent was to protect copyrighted material, they would've used the same standard.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: AMEN
by Peragrin on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: AMEN"
Peragrin Member since:
2006-01-05

There is no standard for DRM. Apple so far has refused to license fairplay, and MSFT wouldn't use anything they didn't create themselves anyway.

DRM is going to soon come to a point where media won't be playable anymore. I have a feeling it will come out with either HD or Blue-ray. As media companies lose to more open formats. As radio stations shut down instead of paying. As subscription systems fail over and over again.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: AMEN
by Sphinx on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE: AMEN"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

and really bad karma.

Reply Score: 1

RE: AMEN
by AppleFollower on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 22:22 UTC in reply to "AMEN"
AppleFollower Member since:
2006-01-15

Your rights as a human being? To listen to music? To watch videos? A little melodramatic are we?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: AMEN
by steveftoth on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE: AMEN"
steveftoth Member since:
2005-10-30

Not really melodramatic, especially considering that the pro-DRM camp uses the same style arguments for DRM.

Why should the record companies limit you to the way you want to listen to the music that you paid to listen to. Or watch the movies you paid for. If it's technically possibly to re-encode a DVD to play on your psp/iPod/mediaplayer2000x then why should they limit you unless it's only to line their pockets with money? Especially when it makes it harder for people to play their content?

DRM = Greed

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: AMEN
by jjmckay on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 23:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: AMEN"
jjmckay Member since:
2005-11-11

(in response to steveftoth's post)

Because of the polar opposite of the corporate greed - the personal greed of piracy. Each polar opposite reinforces the other.

It is what Eckart Tolle describes as 'unconscious self seeking'. The corporations are self seeking by wanting all the money to "make it in life" as almost everyone does. The users who steal or expect music at no cost also self seek by the act of stealing. I'm not bashing either one, just pointing out that they exist together, not separate.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: AMEN
by dylansmrjones on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 23:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: AMEN"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The user who steals music is the same person who buys legal music 5 times more often than the lawabing users.

The more people copy illegally the more they buy legally.

Therefore DMCA and DRM are no meant to stop piracy but to give companies greater control over cash flow so they can get more money.

The arguments used by the companies as support for DMCA and DRM, are the same arguments the companies used to prohibit legal parallel import of DVDs from USA to Europe.

It shut down several minor danish companies living of legally selling non-main stream movies to people.

This cash flow went (in the end) to american companies instead of the local danish offices of said companies. Ergo, they lost money, and that had to be illegal.

It's all about money and power, and has nothing to do will piracy or any such thing.

DRM is a lie.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: AMEN
by Tom K on Tue 24th Jan 2006 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: AMEN"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Haha, where do you get your information?

The person who steals music will buy 5x more of it in the long run than someone who doesn't steal music?

Here's a clue, from personal experience: Out of the 10 friends I know who have some form of P2P running 24/7, only one has ever bought music, and that was two tracks off iTunes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: AMEN
by dylansmrjones on Tue 24th Jan 2006 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: AMEN"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually it was a result of a european scientific research project.

It could of course be different in USA, but the results in Europe was that the average pirate bought 5 times a much legal music than the average non-pirate.

It's a known fact that people who play pirated music buys albums with the good songs they've downloaded, while not buying albums with the bad songs, which also means piracy gives more money to the companies.

Fighting piracy means less money for RIAA - and this works fine with DRM and DMCA having absolutely nothing to do with securing digital content. It's only a way to force people to buy x number of versions of the same song - one for every device.

Most of the people I know actually buy music CDs and/or DVDs. Including me, though I seldom buy them since music/movie companies seldomly releases anything worty hearing or watching. Or put another way - it ain't many singles John Lennon are releasing these days ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: AMEN
by Deletomn on Tue 24th Jan 2006 03:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: AMEN"
Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

dylansmrjones: It could of course be different in USA, but the results in Europe was that the average pirate bought 5 times a much legal music than the average non-pirate.

Well... The first question you need to ask yourself is not the location of the pirate, but the reasons they are "pirating" to start with it. If they HONESTLY just want to try something out. (I say honestly, because some people's definition of trying stuff out is totally absurd, such as spending the next 20 years trying it out.) If they just want to try it out, then I would say, yes... They are likely to spend money, they just want to see what they should spend money on.

Some people pirate to add things to their collection. Meaning there is nothing to buy. That song (or whatever) they just downloaded is it, even if they love it, they'll probably never pay even 5 cents for it.

Most people who TRULY oppose piracy oppose the later, not the former.

Most people I know who pirate are the later. They'll say stuff like "I'm just trying it out..." But as I stated before... That "trial" lasts like 20 years or however long it takes before the pirated material is no longer desirable.

The problem with copy protection mechanisms (besides the fact that they don't work very well) is that it also actually gets in the way of people who want to do things like "try out" the music (or what have you).

Notice I say... They "don't work very well". I say that rather than "not at all", because that is in fact false. Having been in the company of many pirates, I can say that SOMETIMES copy protection does become annoying enough in a particular instance that rather than pirating it, people sometimes go out and buy whatever it was.

For example, with games sometimes its a pain to find the crack for the particular game or version you are using. Or if you are looking at imported movies sometimes the pirated versions have problems. Etc... And at some point, rather than keep screwing around even pirates decide their time is worth more than this and just go down to the local store and buy the thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: AMEN
by Wrawrat on Tue 24th Jan 2006 04:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: AMEN"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Of course, results may vary... I know many people that don't buy anything while others bought more. Personally, my purchase profile rose from 2 CDs per year to about 50, maybe 60. That is between 25 and 30 times! That said, I am not your average listener either...

I have to agree that 5X is far fetched. Perhaps for mature people who appreciate music, but certainly not for the iPod generation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: AMEN
by senornoodle on Tue 24th Jan 2006 09:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: AMEN"
senornoodle Member since:
2005-07-12

And they totally, 100%, unarguably would have payed for the music they downloaded if they didn't get it from P2P. This is an excellent point and one that should be used more often, as it is completely correct, as is the figure from that carefully researched post indicating that only 1 in 10 internet MP3 pirates ever pay for music ever. I mean, who the HELL would ever download something they hadn't heard, then go buy the CD because it was so good?
NOONE EVER DOES THIS!

Also, I am sick and tired of people talking about 'lining record execs pockets'. I mean, what artist would REALLY sign a deal saying they only got 20 cents from each album sale? And who doesn't love spending money on a CD they don't know is worth the money?

I could go on, but I'm sure there are plenty of other people who know what the real deal is.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: AMEN
by AdrianRyan on Tue 24th Jan 2006 05:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: AMEN"
AdrianRyan Member since:
2005-07-02

Personally, I can attest that I do this. The way I got into indie music was for the most part trading music with friends and off my girlfriend's and my college networks. I really wouldn't say that my buying habits have changed that much, except that I've been exposed to many artists that I never would have heard on the Top 40 radio shit that gets played, and now I buy more music from artists who aren't on a major label (mostly because I think they are better). I also have begun buying more merchandise and going to more concerts (especially now that I'm in an area that has regular concerts) since I began infringing on copyrighted music. I often also burn mixed CD's for people, or even an artist's full album, if I think that it will make that person appreciate the new music and possibly buy it. Most of the bands I do this with know that a large number of their listenership found out about them through this method, and are OK with it. Most bands make more money off concerts and merchandise than off their music. I've also begun writing for an indie music magazine at my college, trying to get more people interested in bands they probably wouldn't have heard of.

DRM seeks to have everyone pay for all their music, without sharing this. While the major labels might like this, because that way they get reimbursed for every song sold, for the most part this isn't good for the indie artists. I buy a lot of my music online through Emusic.com. It requires a subscription based service, but for $10 a month I get up to 40 song downloads. The artists are all either completely independent or on "indie" labels, and artists on it include Elliott Smith, Belle & Sebastian, Fugazi, The Pixies, and Modest Mouse. All of the music is in VBR MP3s, sans DRM. I love this music subscription: it gives the the choice to get a lot of music that I otherwise wouldn't, I get to actually support the artists (unlike allofmp3.com, which doesn't reimburse artists for your purchases), and I also get to share the music I get with others, getting them interested in a band, getting them to go to a concert, or buy an album. Also, because I get 40 songs, I usually have songs left over after getting what I want, so I can try out new artists who I might like.

My point? DRM might be good for labels, but it definitely isn't for the underground or independent artists. It deprives them of one of their main marketing routes, while most of the money paid to iTunes or Napster doesn't actually go to the artist. So, support your local artists: trade their music. Get other people interested. Buy albums songs off of which you enjoy! Go to concerts. That's the way to get rid of DRM: don't purchase it. While the major labels will always hold the most weight in the USA, the trading of music can only let more people know about those artists who don't have or want a major label contract, benefiting them.

(For those of you who don't believe that obscure artists like sharing music, here is some evidence that the phenomenon isn't bull:

Belle & Sebastian being OK with people downloading their leaked, new album, if you're going to one of their shows, and plan on buying the album. One listen to the album, and many people will want to buy it.
www.belleandsebastian.com (the site is down right now, so I'm not sure if that message is still up.)

Bishop Allen releasing an EP free online every month until they can find a label to release their album, hoping that it will get more awareness of them.
youaintnopicasso.blogspot.com/2006/01/bishop-allen-to-release-ep-every -month.html (where the news was released [yes, it's a blog, sorry, they haven't updated their site in a long time])
www.bishopallen.com (band site)

OK Go's frontman Damian Kulash wrote an article for the NY Times about Sony's rootkit and why he refused to have it installed on his CD.
www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06kulash.html
(requires registration)
www.coolfer.com/blog/archives/ok_go/
(a similar article he wrote, with a bit stronger language)

The large number of artists who allow their live shows to be traded on archive.org, and the fact that artists allow their live shows recorded at KEXP.org to be archived in downloadable .mp3 files.

The large number of artists and labels who put their music for cheap, DRM free downloads on Emusic.com.

Download.com's music download section, where artists post one or more songs for people to download (completely and at decent quality) to learn about the band.

There are many more similar examples as well.)

Sorry about the monster of a post.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: AMEN
by rhyder on Tue 24th Jan 2006 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: AMEN"
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

"My point? DRM might be good for labels, but it definitely isn't for the underground or independent artists. It deprives them of one of their main marketing routes, while most of the money paid to iTunes or Napster doesn't actually go to the artist. "

Hang on, how does DRM stop you from downloading music legitemately? This is one of the things that DRM is designed to facilitate. It just stops you from then sharing on a P2P or distrubiting them to your colleages.

If you give away some of these 'indi' musicians' music on P2P, that can deprive them of sales. Many people when confronted with the choice of getting something for free or paying for it will rather have it for free.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: AMEN
by Anonymous. on Tue 24th Jan 2006 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: AMEN"
Anonymous. Member since:
2005-12-04

All of the music is in VBR MP3s, sans DRM.
can you download them in a format that allows decent audio quality (no high pitched ringing)? actually, vbr mp3 does allow it, it's just really slow to encode (takes about 15 minutes to encode 1 minute of audio on my 1.6 GHz turion), so i doubt they do that...
flac or 256 kbps cbr mp3 would be good enough for me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: AMEN
by MadDwarf on Tue 24th Jan 2006 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: AMEN"
MadDwarf Member since:
2005-07-07

The user who buys music is the same person who downloads music illegally.

The only thing you can draw from this is that people who like music are the people who both buy and illegally obtain music.

Music lovers love music and will get their hands on it one way or another.

THe more they buy, the more they download illegally.

A correlation is not a cause.

Reply Score: 1

was: AMEN, now: THERE ARE NO FACT OF STEALING!!!
by croco on Tue 24th Jan 2006 09:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: AMEN"
croco Member since:
2005-09-16

> ... The users who steal or expect music at no cost also self seek by the act of stealing. ...

Surely you understand that stealing has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with downloading, right? The original CD/DVD/...-buyer still having his product, so there is NO FACT OF STEALING at all. There are NOTHING MISSING . It's just about DUPLICATING. Yes, it is in most cases violating of the user agreement (but just for the original buyer), but the word "stealing" is just another ??AA propaganda-trick. Stealing CD from music store - yes, it's stealing. But downloading stuff from internet - it's DUPLICATING. Please, don't support the ??AA-bastards, DON'T CALL IT STEALING!

Reply Score: 1

rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

Yes. But many people prefer to have a free copy of something rather than pay for it. If it is easy to obtain free copies, some people won't buy when they would have bought before.

This is why is seen as analogous to steeling. You deprive the artist/distributor of a potential sale.

If the thing isn't worth having, why do people want to download it?

I think that people are being niave when they state that no one would take advantage of such a state of affairs.

Reply Score: 1

haugland Member since:
2005-07-07

Red Herring.

It is factually wrong to call it stealing, but that does not invalidate jjmckays' arguments. Neither pirates or the ??AAs are right.

Reply Score: 1

RE: was: AMEN, now: THERE ARE NO FACT OF STEALING!!!
by haugland on Tue 24th Jan 2006 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: AMEN"
haugland Member since:
2005-07-07

Maybe you are right, but your argument is flawed. The fact that "pirates" buy a lot of music does not imply that more piracy will lead to more music sales. Maybe the good customers would buy even more music if they did not download illegal copies.

The ??AA is a bunch of a**holes, but they would have a lot less arguments for DRM if there was no piracy. I know that "regulatory technology" like regional codes is independent of piracy, but it is much less of a pain in the ass (and it is a common standard).

If the music and movie industries use different DRM as a competitive factor, the market/consumers will dictate that any DRM that is too restrictive will fail. If iTunes had a more restrictive form of DRM (or a complete failure like Sony's rootkit), it would not be as successful.

Reply Score: 1

If it Bleads!
by Guppetto on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 21:25 UTC
Guppetto
Member since:
2005-07-06

That article was very true in my oppinion. However, I don't really worry about DRM, because as he stated, history has shown that it always fails. In fact, telling a person thay can't do something (I.E. - Use a media they've purchased in any way they feel fit) usualy turns into one hell of a motivator. In the words of of our favorite California Governor, "If it bleads, I can kill it" and DRM is bleading lies left and right. Hey soon companies will be sponcering the reverse engineers just like Real did against Fairplay.

Reply Score: 3

DReaM
by joelito_pr on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 22:29 UTC
joelito_pr
Member since:
2005-07-07

What about Sun's Implementation, being OSS makes it a candidate for becoming standard(after it's ready of course)

I mean, yeah, I don't like DRM and don't buy anything that's DRM infected but in the end, I'm afraid we'll have to settle for the lesser of many evils.

Edit: added links just in case
http://www.openmediacommons.org/
http://www.drmwatch.com/special/article.php/3531651

Edited 2006-01-23 22:32

Reply Score: 1

This article is a useless rant
by tomcat on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 23:37 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Just more pablum from the "data must be free" crowd. DRM is about raising the cost of piracy for the average person to the point that they would more likely conform with the copyright. It isn't about eliminating piracy. That's an impossible goal.

Reply Score: 1

RE: This article is a useless rant
by microshag on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 23:55 UTC in reply to "This article is a useless rant"
microshag Member since:
2005-11-30

"It isn't about eliminating piracy. That's an impossible goal."

Indeed. And maybe the entertainment industry should stop to consider just why so many people are unconcerned about piracy, and why they have a lack of sympathy for the RIAA and MPAA.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It has nothing to do with piracy at all.

It does nothing to raise the cose of piracy - it does however violate the constitution of most democratic states, in that it limits constitutional rights.

I know the american system is bOrked, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world should make our systems equally bOrked.

Reply Score: 5

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

It has nothing to do with piracy at all.

Uh, yeah, it does. Don't be disingenuous.

It does nothing to raise the cose of piracy

Of course it does. Most people have no idea how to duplicate a DVD, for example. There is therefore a knowledge cost associated with pirating that content.

- it does however violate the constitution of most democratic states, in that it limits constitutional rights.

Then fight it in court.

I know the american system is bOrked, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world should make our systems equally bOrked.

Yeah, the american system is so "bOrked" that it has the number 1 economy in the world and dominates the content industry. Wow, talk about "bOrked". The Eurosocialists would love to be in such a position.

Reply Score: 0

RenatoRam Member since:
2005-11-14

I don't know where you live, but where *I* live at least one person per workplace will have the *basic* knowledge required to copy whatever format you name.

It's not like you need to understand what you are doing: you just download a couple of tools and use them monkey-style.

And for those that are not able to do even that, there is always the option of buying burned dvds at the corner of the street.

In case you are wondering, I am not writing from Malaysia, I am writing from Italy :-)

Reply Score: 1

monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

The "Eurosocialists" are in just such a position. If you look at any comparitive economic ranking, the European Union and the US are in a dead heat. Besides, even if the US does have the largest economy in the world, I fail to see how that relates to our system of law. Last I checked, rights and freedoms have nothing at all to do with the size and buying power of one's economy.

Then fight it in court.

Now you're being disingenuous. No individual (with the exception of a very loaded few) has the monetary capacity to take on Big Content and fight all the way to the Supreme Court. Brushing off infringements on individual rights and liberties is a copout and a sign of weak citizenship.

Reply Score: 1

bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

Since when do purchased items have constitutional rights? As far as I know, only humans have constitutional rights. Purchased music, movies, and software aren't purchased at all--you buy a usage licence only.

Yes, it would be nice if everyone played by the rules and the music was inexpensive and the artist made plenty of money and you could enjoy your music on every device equally but DRM isn't the worst part of this situation--it's the publishing record company and their supporting quasi-governmental organisation, which helps them to maximise profit but taking from everyone else.

Reply Score: 1

RE: This article is a useless rant
by JeffS on Tue 24th Jan 2006 00:46 UTC in reply to "This article is a useless rant"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"DRM is about raising the cost of piracy for the average person to the point that they would more likely conform with the copyright."

This statement assumes that most average people steal content, or don't respect copyright.

When you look at the fact that most average people don't steal, and do respect copyright, then your whole premise is blown completely out of the water.

People just want to buy their music/movies, and be able to play it on their various devices and PCs, without the hassle of DRM.

The article is 100% right in that DRM is about companies trying to obtain virtual monopolies, and/or screw eash other, and/or edge each other out of the big content consuming pie.

DRM is a joke, and is completely useless, and only screws honest, paying consumers. Plain and simple.

Reply Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

This statement assumes that most average people steal content, or don't respect copyright.

Don't they though? I don't know very many people (actually, only a few) who have a passing knowledge of how to pirate and don't do it. For example, I was riding with a friend in her car, and she was listening to the latest Nickelback CD. (A band I don't really care for, but that's beside the point.) She just casually mentioned that her sister bought the CD and 'made a copy' for her. And this is otherwise a pretty honest person. Most people who consider themselves honest won't hesitate to burn a copy of something that their friends own.

As for preventing casual piracy, this same person attempted to let her stepdad 'borrow' her Windows XP install CD, but the product activation barked at them when they tried to install. Of course, this is easily worked around, but you gotta have the knowledge. And most people who have that knowledge will do it. (BTW: Personally, I don't pirate stuff.)

Edited 2006-01-24 02:18

Reply Score: 1

JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"She just casually mentioned that her sister bought the CD and 'made a copy' for her."

" this same person attempted to let her stepdad 'borrow' her Windows XP install CD"

What you're talking about here is what I consider, and many, many, many people consider, to be "fair use".

If I buy something, I should be able to share that something with a friend or family member. Just imagine if you bought a book, read it, then loaned it to your brother or someone else. You have a moral right to do so. Also, I should be able to loan my skill saw to my neighbor. There are many such examples.

The copyright on Windows and some CDs forbids such "fair use", and it is, quite frankly, immoral to forbid such fair use.

Now what is fair for content producers to forbid is unauthorized redistribution for profit. That's what does actual damage to someone's business-depending, revenue-producing intellectual property.

Piracy, or casual sharing among family and friends, does not do damage to a content producer's business or livlihood. Nor does file sharing on the internet, as most studies/surveys have shown that the biggest file dowloaders/sharers also tend to be the biggest purchasers, and they even increase their purchasing of content after downloading heavily.

DRM being used by large companies is only their stategy to gain a leg up on their competion and extract more cash from consumers. DRM provides no benefits and only causes hassles and/or limitations on consumers. DRM is a disaster.

Reply Score: 1

bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

There's a fundamental difference between digital content and "real world stuff". Digital content can be copied with next to zero cost, a book or skill saw can't.

Now, let's for a minute imagine that it was possible to copy a skill saw. Would you consider giving a copy to your neighbor to be "fair use"?

I'm not supporting DRM. I just wanted to point out that digital content is a very special form of merchandise. "Information Rules" by Chapiro and Varian is an interesting read; http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087584863X

Reply Score: 2

MadDwarf Member since:
2005-07-07

There is a fundamental difference between lending a single copy (say a book) that can only be read by one at a time, and making a copy of something. Would it still be fair use to photocopy a book you like to give to your friend?
To let someone copy something is not lending it them. and to copy a whole CD from a friend is hardly fair use is it? one track, previews of tracks ... but an album (even a single) is a Full Work - wholesale copying is against the law (most places)

Reply Score: 1

sean batten Member since:
2005-07-06

If I buy something, I should be able to share that something with a friend or family member

Sure, but normally when you share something with a friend if affects your ability to use it. For example, if I lend a friend my car I can use it while they've got it. When you make a copy of a cd you're producing another instance of the original and giving it away.

If you want to lend a friend a cd then give them the original and wait for them to give it back to you!

Reply Score: 2

Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

JeffS: If I buy something, I should be able to share that something with a friend or family member. Just imagine if you bought a book, read it, then loaned it to your brother or someone else. You have a moral right to do so. Also, I should be able to loan my skill saw to my neighbor. There are many such examples.

Being a big lender of stuff myself, I can say that this like most "pro-piracy" stuff is a half-truth. sean batten mentioned how when you normally lend something it affects your ability to use it. Let me put it you this way... With my books on programming (which I frequently lend out) I can only lend any particular one to ONE friend at a time. That's right ONE. And while it's lent out I have NO access to it. However, if I lend my free software out, I can lend it to countless people at one time and I never lose access to it. Big difference.

Secondly... As I mentioned in a previous post, a lot of this has to do with intent. A lot of people when they pirate, intend to keep whatever it is, not to just try it out or use it for one day for a very specific one time purpose or what have you. Its generally there to stay. Meaning the word "lend" in the instance of piracy (like the term "try out") tends to mean "give" and "keep forever".

Reply Score: 2

JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

Deletomn: "Being a big lender of stuff myself, I can say that this like most "pro-piracy" stuff is a half-truth. sean batten mentioned how when you normally lend something it affects your ability to use it. Let me put it you this way... With my books on programming (which I frequently lend out) I can only lend any particular one to ONE friend at a time. That's right ONE. And while it's lent out I have NO access to it. However, if I lend my free software out, I can lend it to countless people at one time and I never lose access to it. Big difference."

Good point. However, when a copy of a song or movie is made, nothing has been taken from the original producer. They still have their copy that they can still sell for profit. Also, there is an initial cost of production (originally creating the "thing"), but there is near zero cost of re-production - they just keep making more and more copies.

So it works both ways. Yes with software or music I can produce many copies and give/loan them all to friends and still have my copy. Theoretically, this can take away from the potential purchases of said content. But on the other side of the coin, the original content producer has the tremdous benefit of zero cost re-production, and is able to reap much higher profits than is possible with high-cost re-production products (like a book or a skill saw).

And again I'll point to the fact that file sharing, by all studies and surveys and anectodal evidence, does not do any harm to the original content producers' business. In fact, just the opposite is true - the biggest file sharers/downloaders also tend to be the biggest producers. Finally, file sharing, or giving a copy to a neighbor, or producing a "mix" CD or tape (something that has been common place for decades) is the best free marketing a content producer could ever wish for. The companies can spend millions on marketing, but nothing beats the power of "word of mouth" or file sharing to get people to try stuff and eventually buy.

The fact that "Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith" broke all box office records in spite of the fact that it was already downloadable on the internet (through someone obtaining a copy and sharing it) before theatrical release is proof of this. If you go with the big companies train of thought, you'd think that the file sharing would have hurt "Revenge of the Sith"'s box office. But it didn't. It helped it.

So, in short, content sharing (either with friends or on the internet) is not taking away from content producers - it's helping them.

Reply Score: 1

h times nue equals e Member since:
2006-01-21

Both of you make IMHO good points.

First, copyright was intended to give the producers/artists/creators/... a monopoly limited in time to compensate for the costs of creating the content, but after that, the work should go into the public domain, to allow further usage (remixing, doing parodies or derivatives of it, .... )

I'm asking myself, if any DRM scheme actually has a kind of expiration date included. Please note, that I'm quite confident, that (if mankind doesn't destroy themselfes for another 100 years or so, and we don't get attacked by country-music hating martians either, etc. ) it will be quite trivial to hack around a then ancient and trivial copy protection mechanism, when for example a DRMed copy of a Led Zeppelin track goes into public domain state. But it kind of rips the very important tag "limited in time" from the "monopoly" sign attached to creative works, and that is (at least formally) not good. If I buy a book and it has expired the protective duration copyright grants, I can make as many derivative works (and as long as it is limited to the original work) copies from it as it pleases me. I can't see though, if this will hold for electronic media in the future too.

(I'm quite sure, that the copyright period will get extended up to a level where it is practically perpetual, so yeah, that's a pretty academic concern of mine, but I'll stick to my illusions as long as I can)

Edited 2006-01-24 22:49

Reply Score: 1

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If I buy something, I should be able to share that something with a friend or family member. Just imagine if you bought a book, read it, then loaned it to your brother or someone else. You have a moral right to do so. Also, I should be able to loan my skill saw to my neighbor. There are many such examples.[i]

The difference between Windows, a book, and a skill saw, is that when you 'loan' Windows to somebody, you're not really loaning it to them .. you're [i]giving
it to them. Unlike a book or a skill saw, you can do that without losing the original. To make your analogy fit, you would have to make a Star Trek-style copy of the physical devices and loan out the copy while keeping the original to yourself.

Also, in regards to piracy, so you make a copy of a software program you bought and 'loan' it to your friend. Ok, fine. But what is the difference between that and somebody who uplaods a torrent on the Internet and 10,000 people download it? In other words, how many copies can you 'loan' out before it comes wrong? 1? 5? 1 million? Where do you draw the line?

Reply Score: 1

RE: This article is a useless rant
by Tyr. on Tue 24th Jan 2006 00:46 UTC in reply to "This article is a useless rant"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

DRM is about raising the cost of piracy for the average person to the point that they would more likely conform with the copyright.

Yeah and the fact that it increases the media conglomerates stranglehold over the media all while making them even more money then they do now is just a happy coincidence. ( http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/736.html )

Let's just ignore the fact that they can eliminate a great deal more piracy by simply lowering their prices. Hands up everyone that's old enough to remember the lie that "cd's are only this expensive because they were new and there was a lower supply."
People are being ripped off, and as such they don't feel guilty about returning the favour. I know I don't.

Reply Score: 2

chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

DRM is about raising the cost of piracy for the average person

Piracy is the the illegal armed seizure of ships at sea to seize valuable cargo and also it may involve holding the crew and passengers to ransom. It is a violent an dangerous crime which currently seems to be growing around the world. It is causing a serious problem for international law enforcement agencies and is also a serious problem for for maritime insurance companies.

It is however a crime not generally carried out by "the average person". Please use english words to say what they mean, rather than corporate sponsored newspeak otherwise we all crimethink. This is doubleplusungood again.

Edited 2006-01-24 05:46

Reply Score: 2

MadDwarf Member since:
2005-07-07

"Piracy" to describe the unauthorized copying of protected works has been used since the 1800s

Reply Score: 1

sean batten Member since:
2005-07-06

DRM is about raising the cost of piracy for the average person

Piracy is the the illegal armed seizure of ships at sea to seize valuable cargo and also it may involve holding the crew and passengers to ransom. It is a violent an dangerous crime which currently seems to be growing around the world. It is causing a serious problem for international law enforcement agencies and is also a serious problem for for maritime insurance companies.

It is however a crime not generally carried out by "the average person". Please use english words to say what they mean, rather than corporate sponsored newspeak otherwise we all crimethink. This is doubleplusungood again.


Wow..! Chill out...

Reply Score: 1

Hey, just wait a DRM'd minute there!
by FurryOne on Tue 24th Jan 2006 00:04 UTC
FurryOne
Member since:
2006-01-23

As the founding father of "BMW Oners Against DRM", I'd just like to say that not all BMW owners support DRM.

"DRIVE FREE, LIVE FREE, LISTEN FREE.... RPM, NOT DRM!!"

(Exclusive pictures of Mike Magee roadtesting a BMW Z4....)

Reply Score: 1

konfoo Member since:
2006-01-02

Hear hear. My BMW runs a hacked OmniFi with MP3s in the trunk. Its those Bentley drivers you *really* have to fear..

Reply Score: 1

RE: This article is a useless rant
by archiesteel on Tue 24th Jan 2006 00:43 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

How does it raise the cost of piracy when it is just as easy to download the file off of the P2P networks, whether there is DRM or not?

It takes only one not-so-dedicated pirate to break the DRM and flood the P2P networks, so DRM is clearly ineffective. As I've stated before, the only people who are affected by DRM are the honest, law-abiding ones who actually buy the CDs.

No industry has survived long by treating its customers as criminals...

Reply Score: 1

RE:
by Jeeeb on Tue 24th Jan 2006 01:44 UTC
Jeeeb
Member since:
2005-11-12

Making laws is a fine balancing act, you don't want to make completly outrageous and unenforcable laws. For example the current penalties for copyright infrignement with things such as music .etc. This form of copyright infringement is a modern problem and requires modern solutions. IMO the best solution is simple FAIR laws, enforced by a trully accountable public authority (i.e. the police). Simply destroying our rights to freely use the media we buy, doesn't solve the problem, it just makes copyright enforcement seem even more extreme and drives more users to flaunt it.

Edited 2006-01-24 01:45

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]:
by Tyr. on Tue 24th Jan 2006 01:57 UTC in reply to "RE:"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

The sinle most important problem with the law is that is is created by "experts" that use such arcane language that nobody can or wants to protest it anymore. It's brilliant, how can you protest when you can't even read it to know it's unjust ?

As the predident of a certain country once said when their presidents still said stuff that mattered :
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow. (James Madison, Federalist No. 62, 1788)"

Reply Score: 1

Good Article..
by peterservo on Tue 24th Jan 2006 02:33 UTC
peterservo
Member since:
2006-01-24

Interesting.

Just the other day, I heard an interview with Todd of Big Head Todd and the Monsters (a fairly popular American band). The jist of the interview was that he is now giving away his new music in the form of a podcast that anyone can subscribe to freely, or download freely from his website.

He went on to say the HE doesn't make money from CDs. He makes money from touring. It's the record labels that make money from his CDs, not him. Sort of justifies the point of this article (albeit a bit dramatic) if you ask me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good Article..
by MadDwarf on Tue 24th Jan 2006 14:48 UTC in reply to "Good Article.."
MadDwarf Member since:
2005-07-07

Hear Hear!

The music companies make money by charging to market, publicise and distribute the works of others.

There is NO law that says you have to use these companies.

If you dont want their services, or can get them from another source (or do them yourself), all good and well.

OK, the music companies have a near-monopoly on some marketing streams (radio, MTV, etc).

What I d o not like is the music companies demanding full ownership of an artists work. non-exclusive rights to reprint their albums is one thing, but saying "We AND ONLY WE can play your tacks, sell your albums etc and you have no say any more " is too restrictive for my liking

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Good Article..
by peterservo on Tue 24th Jan 2006 17:57 UTC in reply to "Good Article.."
peterservo Member since:
2006-01-24

Right.

I should have gone on to say that I hold nothing against record/movie companies. After all, they are simply trying to recoup their investment in fledgling artists. They do most of the marketing etc... and they do deserve to be compensated for their investment. You know, the free enterprise system.

I just wish they'd go about it in a more stratighforward manner. Something like coming out and saying "Hey, we picked up these guys when they were playing for beer money in college cafeterias, they're now selling out concert halls and we'd like a return on our investment". Well, OK.

Instead, they choose to insult the intelligence of the consumer by coming up with new and proprietary formats (as mentioned in the article) so that Joe Consumer MUST purchase media from them and them only. This is wrong.

Further, and to complicate the issue, we now have Microsoft (see free enterprise statement) sponsoring/promoting (funding) legislation like DRM and all the other attendant anti-media terrorist tools. This too is wrong.

As the old saying goes: "When media is outlawed, only outlaws will have media".

Reply Score: 1

Well...
by Tuishimi on Tue 24th Jan 2006 02:49 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

I work for a company that performs a similar function. It repermissions rights to people who wish to use a copyrighted work owned by someone else.

In other words, you wrote an article published by science magazine, and some science teacher wants to quote some of your work, he/she is SUPPOSED to pay a royalty to you to do so. We manage that for hundreds of major rightsholders and publishers in this country and around the globe.

You come to our site and tell us how much of the article you want to use, and how you want to use it, and we tell you if you can use it or not and how much it will cost you.

Our biggest customers are universities and corporations. If someone spends 1000 hours or more researching a topic and wants his work to remain his, he has the right to protect it and demand payment for its use.

We support corporations like major newspapers, science magazines and periodicals, and many many other authors. We used to handle photography as well but decided to spin that off and focus on writing. You can go to the MIRA project (if it is still called that) for more information on photography.

But, there has been research regarding encapsulating works for download in a protected format that actually tracks usage (in this industry). As it is now, we trust YOU to be honest and tell us how much and how you will use something. The process of encapsulating a work in some form of protective technology will enable us to insure that it is being used as the contract indicated and the rightsholder gets his money and can feel confident that his work is being used appropriately.

Edited 2006-01-24 02:50

Reply Score: 1

Sharing/"Piracy"
by qroon on Tue 24th Jan 2006 05:45 UTC
qroon
Member since:
2005-10-21

Some people and record labels easily call people sharing the stuff they bought as pirates. So if my wife/gf bought an album (cd) and she shared the ogg/mp3s to me and her brother, we are pirates automatically? Do we have to buy 2 or 3 copies of the same album so we can abide to these laws? Same thing if i share some of my ogg/mp3s (CDs legally acquired) to my bandmates, we are already criminals? tsk!

Just my 2 centavo opinion.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sharing/"Piracy"
by bogomipz on Tue 24th Jan 2006 08:25 UTC in reply to "Sharing/"Piracy""
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

Most people, and even the record labels I believe, consider it completely legal to lend a CD to friends as long as it's not being copied. Also converting the songs to OGG/MP3, or whatever format you prefer, should be ok for personal use.

My logical sense says that when you buy an album you buy the right for it to be played one place at a time.

Many (older) software licences state that you can install the products on as many computers as you like, but only one of the copies is allowed to be running at any given point. To me, this seems like a fair deal, and this is close to what happens when you lend a CD to a friend without it being copied.

Sharing OGG/MP3s, on the other hand, can easily get it spread to people you don't even know. Although sharing with friends is not as bad as publishing on P2P networks, it does get a bit sketchy.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sharing/"Piracy"
by rhyder on Tue 24th Jan 2006 13:48 UTC in reply to "Sharing/"Piracy""
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

That's how it works and how it should work IMO. A copy each. If you tire of the album and decide to resell it or give it away, that's your busness.

Following your logic and scaling it up, are you saying that you think that just one 'source' copy of each album should be bought and then everyone else should just be able to get a copy?

If so, how would musicians and other artists make a living under your model?

Or are you saying that the law should be that you should able allowed to give a copy to 'people that you are related' or 'people that you know really well'? If so, how many people?

Reply Score: 1

All I will say to DRM is......
by CaptainFlint on Tue 24th Jan 2006 05:57 UTC
CaptainFlint
Member since:
2006-01-24

YAAAAAR ME HEARTIES YAAAAAAR!!!!!!!!

Reply Score: 0

rhyder
Member since:
2005-09-28

I was involved in online debate with someone who made the claim that he buys more music now and that if he likes something that he downloads, he goes out and buys it.

He then tied himself up in knots when he was bragging about how diverse his musical tastes were: He talked about how much he liked a punk album and an album of electronic music that he downloaded. "So", I asked him "you must have *bought* them as you *like* them". He replied that he hadn't because he couldn't afford them. He would buy them when he could afford them.

Yeah right.

I can't believe how many people believe that intellectual property shouldn't be protected under law. Do they believe that musicians and writers and composers shouldn't receive any payment?

Mike - An (amateur) musician and writer who downloads and knows that it's technically stealing.

Edited 2006-01-24 13:00

Reply Score: 1

microshag Member since:
2005-11-30

"I can't believe how many people believe that intellectual property shouldn't be protected under law. Do they believe that musicians and writers and composers shouldn't receive any payment? "

Yeah, but that argument goes both ways. Making a living is one thing, but when we're buying these artists mansions, nightclubs, hummers, and god what else, and when you take into account that there would be no music "business" were it not for the fans, you might think they'd want to give something back, show some appreciation. But no, greedy bastards that they are, this selfish attitude of the entertainment industry is what's coming back to bite them now. And one might say, but that's capitalism. Except that there's such a thing as public relations, and theirs is not very good.

Reply Score: 1

This had me standing on my desk screaming
by NixerX on Tue 24th Jan 2006 14:10 UTC
NixerX
Member since:
2006-01-04

Hallelujah!

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: AMEN
by Dave_K on Tue 24th Jan 2006 16:49 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

If your 1.6Ghz Turion takes 15 minutes to encode 1 minute of VBR MP3 then there's something seriously wrong with it. My old 400Mhz Celeron can encode high quality VBR MP3 (--alt-preset standard) using LAME encoder faster than real time.

I don't find that making VBR MP3s takes significantly longer than CBR, but at the same file size the quality is significantly better with VBR.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: AMEN
by Anonymous. on Tue 24th Jan 2006 17:53 UTC
Anonymous.
Member since:
2005-12-04

If your 1.6Ghz Turion takes 15 minutes to encode 1 minute of VBR MP3 then there's something seriously wrong with it. My old 400Mhz Celeron can encode high quality VBR MP3 (--alt-preset standard) using LAME encoder faster than real time.
try "-q 0 -V 0 --athtype 1 -k --nspsytune".
looks like it's only taking about 2 1/5 minutes to encode 1 minute now... still much slower than cbr, tho (-q0 --cbr -b 256 -k --nspsytune)...

Reply Score: 1

regarding the stolen code in the Sony rootkit
by nii_ on Wed 25th Jan 2006 04:19 UTC
nii_
Member since:
2005-07-11

Regarding the code that Sony stole, with complete disrespect for any copyright law. This put in Millions(?) of CDs right? So can the true copyright holder charge / sue for a licensing fee of say one quarter the price of each CD sold?


On another note. I think DRM is very dangerous for goverments to. If terrorist cells are passing dangerous information between their groups, then they can easily hide behind DRM as supported by MS, Sony and so on.
As DRM begins to get embed in the hardware in the chip production lines in China and elsewhere, then this is going to be extremely dangerous.

No DRM, and freedom have always led our nations forward.

Reply Score: 1