Former Apple Exec Speaks Against DRM 408
Wysz writes "Mike Evangelist, former Director of Product Marketing for Apple's "Pro" applications, has blogged his thoughts about DRM. Like many of us, he is offended by the fact that the record labels and movie studios treat their customers like criminals.
While he notes in the comments section that iTunes is the best of the worst, he admits to using third-party tools to remove the DRM from iTunes tracks."
Good luck! (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy for you to say; you've already bought everything!
Just kidding.
Seriously, good luck with that. I'm sure, like when Homer Simpson told Moe that he wouldn't buy any more "Flaming Moe's", Apple and others will be able to hear your "You just lost yourself a customer!" declaration over their excited, yelling customers and ringing cash registers.
You know how just about every department store puts a don't-steal-me tag on the clothes that has to be removed before you can wear it? They're treating you like a potential criminal, too. Just something to think about before you boycott an industry that takes irritating measures to keep their stuff from getting stolen.
For what it's worth, although I avoid buying CDs that aren't real red book Compact Disc (I want to rip my music with no limits), I have no problems with Apple's DRM.
Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good luck! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Informative)
No. I bought the music, the media it was recorded on, and the right to copy and remix it any way I like. What I don't have is the right to copy and redistribute without permission from the *copyright* owner, which is NOT the same as the owner of the music. Music is not property, and it cannot be owned any more than an idea can be owned. The idea of illegal redistribution was envisioned to be illegal CD manufactories and suchlike, NOT Joe Suburban copying records onto tape.
I have fair use rights to copy the music for personal use, which by common law for over thirty years meant, among other rights, the right to make copies and share it with friends. Music companies have tried to outlaw this, but legislatures and courts had skillfully ducked around finding such copying "unlawful". Up until recently, the infraction was a civil one, not criminal, which meant the infringer was liable for civil damages limited to actual monetary damages caused to the copyright holder -- less than a few bucks per album copied. Record companies didn't bother suing people for dozens of dollars, so massive copists like Metallica's band members, who copied thousands of other people's albums from vinyl to tape when they were young and poor, got away clean.
Now, with skillful placement of bribes to congressmen and a 30+ campaign to put Federalist Society judges on the bench, it's criminal to copy music, and the "damages" per individual copist is judged in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars -- obvious horseshit.
I don't mean to drown out your other points, as they are worthy. But we can't let them own this "license to experience on the correct media" meme. To win a semantic war, you can't let the enemy redefine the terms of the argument.
Re:Good luck! (Score:3, Interesting)
Totally in agreement with you on the general argument, but I'm not sure what the above means. The Federalist Society has only been around for 20 years, and it's mostly an organization of libertarians and "Eisenhower conservatives" who dislike the over-reaching of the federal government. I certainly wouldn't say that the expansion of federal copyright law is in any way something they'd condone.
Re:Good luck! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good luck! (Score:2, Insightful)
Not in the RFID future.
Re:Good luck! (Score:2, Informative)
-J
Re:Good luck! (Score:2)
They are also apologetic and understanding if they forget and the alarm goes off. Many times they don't care. Also, everybody knows that employees are the biggest shoplifters.
Oh, and these stores take stuff back. That is difficult to impossible to do with DRMed media, even if they sold you something different than what you thought you were buying.
Now, take Pro Tools for example. This requires 2 hardware dongles. One is a USB key, the other
Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Informative)
In a retail store that enables tags like the GP mentioned? Yup.
Employee Theft 48.5% $15.1 billion
Shoplifting 31.7% $9.7 billion
Administrative Error 15.3% $4.8 billion
Vendor Fraud 5.4% $1.7 billion
From another source:Or another I have never heard of any data to the contrary, but _everybody_ might not know that as you implied.
Re:Good luck! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets take this a little bit further.
A department store decides to leaves the anti-theft tag on it's clothes permanently to prevent people from copying it's designs. You go to the store and buy a baseball cap. You take the cap home and your wife thinks it's cool too, but the tag jumps in the way and refused to let her put it on her head. Your daughter finds a hack to let her wear the cap, but the damn thing is watermarked so the store can tell it's "stolen". The store sees her wearing the cap and sues you.
You deal with the lawsuit and throw away the hacked cap, but you liked the cap so much you buy a second copy. You wear it regularly for a while then put it in a drawer and only wear it occasionally. When you decide to buy a new house and move, the cap refuses to let the movers take it out of the old house. It also refuses to let the new owners of the old house use it. It sits in the garage and is useless to anyone.
You still are pretty charmed by the cap so you buy a third copy. Since you've been going bald for a few years, it's nice to have your head covered up on summer days. After watching infomercials late at night, you decide the Hair Club for Men is the thing for you. You're really happy with your new "hair" but you still want some cover so you go to put on the cap. It refuses to go on your head.
You are PISSED! You've bought three copies of that F**KING cap and now you can't even use it, just cause you have new "hair". You swear to never buy another cap from that GOD D**NED company. But the cap really has a lot of sentimental value so you end up buying a fourth copy anyway.
Yep, DRM is just like those little tags
TW
Re:Good luck! (Score:3, Interesting)
Department store tags vs. DRM (Score:2, Insightful)
When you buy media with DRM, you take the tag home with you so it can tell you how to use the product you bought and try to get you in jail for shutting it up.
Re:Department store tags vs. DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because their shirt can't instantly become six billion more shirts, which you can give away for free (or sell for next to nothing, like AllofMP3.com does) and take away any reason for anybody else to buy one from them.
Selling recorded music is a multi-million dollar industry, the owners of which surely don't want to just give up, just because technology has made it fantastically easy to rip them off.
If you don't like DRM, suggest another way for them to sell music. (And no bullshit answers about giving it away and making their money off concerts and t-shirt sales. Suggest a solution which doesn't involve simply giving up all that sales revenue.) If you can't come up with anything better than what's out there now, why would you be surprised that they can't either, and are desperately experimenting with so many bad ideas?
Re:Department store tags vs. DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't like DRM, suggest another way for them to sell music. (And no bullshit answers about giving it away and making their money off concerts and t-shirt sales. Suggest a solution which doesn't involve simply giving up all that sales revenue.) If you can't come up with anything better than what's out there now, why would you be surprised that they can't either, and are desperately experimenting with so many bad ideas?
This seems a little over-the-top to me. Consider this example. Ford has just "invented" the assembly line. It's now possible to build cars extremely cheaply. In other words, the cost or reproduction has gone down by an order of magnitude. Let's say there had been car-makers before that, but they made custom cars to order, one at a time. They would see this sudden new method of production as a threat, and try to artificially maintain inflated prices. Would they be justified in shutting Ford down?
I'm well aware this analogy doesn't really work, but there are elements of it that are important. Firstly, the real change here is in production. Music distributors DO NOT MAKE MUSIC. That's what bands do. So when you buy a CD from a Warner or whatever, you're not paying Warner for the music, you're paying Warner for the CD. Of course, you're also paying Warner to market the CD, you're paying them to possible promote the band. And part of your money is actually going to fund the band itself.
So essentially the music industry has become a big middle man. They don't make music, they promote and distribute it. But now they are no longer needed for distribution. The method of production has gotten cheaper and anyone with a PC can do it. They arguably don't need to promote it either - with the internet it's possible to disseminate information for free - or almost.
So before you, or anyone gets all high and mighty about "they make a living selling music, blah blah blah" you have to ask yourself - are they really needed any more? And if not, then why should we keep them around? We don't keep blacksmiths around either. Of course the industy has a vested interest in keeping itself alive, but that doesn't mean we have to roll over and let them extort money from us when they no longer really have much to offer us.
So what should replace this business model? Clearly bands need to get paid or we won't have full-time artists anymore. So money needs to change hands. That is clear. I'd recommend dropping the price on physical CDs considerably - like $5 bucks a pop. If the good is sufficiently elastic you'll make the m oney back in increased revenue. Shift to an online model. There are plenty of sites that want to sell music cheap. Reduce the price for an mp3 to 10 cents or something. Share the profits more equitably between distributor and band. There you go. Let fan sites handle promoting.
That may or may not be the perfect solution, but here's the key point. It's not the consumer's job to come up with a new business model. And if the currrent business model has become irrelevant, we don't have an obligation to develop a new one before pointing out that the current one is irrelevant.
Let's be realistic. Change is inevitable. The industry can fight it, and be crushed eventually, or they can downsize and reinvent themselves. Painful, yes, but nothing like the alternative.
stormin
Re:Department store tags vs. DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
All you've succeeded in doing is creating a boo-hoo story for the VP in charge of the Sony Music dvision. And it's legitimate. But it doesn't change the fact that when the market changes in fundamental ways some business models do not survive. Period. You have this HUGE industry that was essentially created to solve a problem: distribute music to consumers. At the time of creation the only method of distribution was physical. It was expensive and time-consuming to create phonographs, 8-tracks, cassett
Re:Department store tags vs. DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument that he is putting forth is:
It's okay to do whatever you need to do to keep a job.
The music execs need to put DRM in music to keep their job.
Therefore it's okay for the music execs to put DRM in music.
Now, you change the argument, but keep the same construction.
It's okay to do whatever you need to do to keep a job.
Guards in Nazi concen
Re:Department store tags vs. DRM (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe some musicians are able to get a good enough contract where this isn't the case, but they generally can't argue for that kind of contract unless the record company is sure that it'll
Re:Department store tags vs. DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
There. Fixed that for you. ;-)
I have a solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, here's one: sell music without DRM. CDs, mp3s, DVDs, whatever floats your boat.
CD burners have been available for nearly a decade now. Mass copying of digital music has been feasible, and known to your average Joe, for years now. Broadband is pretty standard in most countries. Yet people still buy CDs by the millions.
Why?
Because the vast majority of people are honest. They'd LIKE to pay for things. I know it's easy to assume everyone is out to steal from everyone else, but the numbers simply don't reflect this. Mass copying of free digital music has been available and easy to use for years now, and yet people still buy CDs by the truckload.
You're always going to lose some sales due to piracy, sure. Maybe even a decent percentage (10-20%). But overall, most people are quite willing to give up some money for a quality product. Don't believe me? Here in Canada, copying CDs for personal use is 100% legal. Most interpretations of the law say that sharing/downloading mp3s is also 100% legal. Yet CDs still sell, and sell well. Record stores aren't going out of business in droves, people still have a collection of CDs in their cars, and the music industry is still making a profit.
Should copying be illegal? Maybe. That'll stop the casual users. DRM will never stop the dedicated. They're just not interested in buying your music. Short of not releasing it, you'll never stop these people. But the masses will happily pay for unencumbered mp3s.
It's kind of like bottled water. Water is free, right? Then why is bottled water a multi-million dollar industry?
Convenience. Imagine a music store with everything, and no DRM. I'd be paying thousands every year for music at the rate I chew through it, even though I could easily get it for free. DRM doesn't stop music from getting onto P2P networks, and it never will. All it does is stop me from buying music from iTunes, etc.
Re:I have a solution (Score:4, Informative)
I'd like to buy music online, but I'm faced with some problems. I prefer higher quality music than iTunes offers. They don't have a choice of spending a bit more for better quality; it's just one size fits all. Then there's the fact that I have to use their media players to play my music. My cell phone and PSP will all of a sudden become useless as music players unless I go through the cumbersome burn/re-rip process that will give me even lower quality than I started with.
Even though I'd love the convenience of downloading, I still have good ol' CDs. I can get universally playable MP3s at any quality I want. I'm happy. Except now they're putting DRM on those too. I can no longer assume that the CDs I buy will ever be playable on my PSP without jumping through a whole grab-bag of hoops. I have to explain to my teen-age daughter that the reason daddy's computer is chock full of hacking software is just so I can listen to the music I legally bought in the store.
And the worst part is that if I really was a "file sharer" the music companies have not stopped me from sharing their music with my favorite P2P client. All they've done is made an honest guy's music listening experience an exercise in frustration.
Thanks.
TW
Re:Department store tags vs. DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
By the same token you can not produce a shirt and then replicate for pennies while selling each one at $20.00.
What this points out is that music has been overpriced for years. The cost of production has kept going down without corresponding reduction in price.
the so called "piracy" is
Re:Department store tags vs. DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
Easy.
Q: How has the internet changed things?
A: The cost of distribution is now effectively zero.
No smart business will even try to charge for something that is free. Even if they have a 300% markup, 3 * 0 is still ZERO.
Q: What's left to charge a markup on?
A: Labor costs.
The cost to create the album, book, movie or video game is where there is still opportunity to charge a mark-up. So, forget all about copyright which is (primarily) about controlling distribution. There is no value in distribution any more.
Instead, sell all the creations as work-for-hire to the public domain. Yes, let the public pay for the cost of creation plus whatever premium you can milk from them. If it costs $500K to produce an album, then ask for $1M up front from the public at large. Let the people pay whatever they think such an album will be worth to them. Take all those payments, put them into an escrow account and when it hits $1M you get to work. When you are done, release the finished album to the public domain and collect your $1M in payment.
This can work for the same reason that the cost of distribution is now zero - the Internet. The cost of collecting payments from millions of people is approaching zero too. We still need the right financial infrastructure to do it efficiently, but technically all the pieces are already available.
Q: How does "work-for-hire to the public domain" benefit the content creators?
A: It substantially reduces their risks by guaranting the return on their investment up front.
Q: How does "work-for-hire to the public domain" benefit the consumers?
A1: They will actually own the results - no worries about breaking the law to share with friends.
A2: They have much more of a say into what kinds of entertainment get created - not advertisers, not studio execs, but the actual consumer gets to vote with his dollar before production which is far more effective than "voting" after the production is already finished.
Q: What if not enough money is collected to reach $1M?
A: Lower the asking price, or give up and return all the escrowed money or spend some money on hype to encourage more buyers. This is the epitomy of a free market, no government involvement required at all.
Re:Department store tags vs. DRM (Score:2, Insightful)
That's got to be just about the most stupid analysis I've ever seen in my life.
Cost of producing six billion shirts at $50 a pop: $300,000,000.00
Cost of producing six billion music tracks via torrents: $450.99
($450.00 for the PC plus $0.99 for the track download from the iTunes Music store. If
Re:Good luck! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good luck! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but once I buy the clothes, the tag is taken off, and that article of clothing is mine to do with as I please - including changing it, cutting it up and mixing it with other cut up clo
Re:Good luck! (Score:2)
Maybe if these companies wouldn't be so evil they'd improve their image. And I don't mean trying to do some high-profile good to spin-balance their must-profit-evil acts.
Re:Good luck! (Score:2, Insightful)
In the case of the CD content, if you buy it you have to deal with the DRM problems. If you steal it you actually get a better product that you can use as you please. They actually only treat paying customers like criminals. And they don't see that. Very sad indeed.
Re:Good luck! (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately those tags are removed at the time of purchase. I would have no problem with DRM if it was removed by the seller at the time of purchase.
more difficult to abide by today (Score:5, Interesting)
From his blog:
I agree. This has been my philosophy for a long time. Unfortunately, you can only find out after the fact you've bought something with crap built in. If there is any disclaimer at all on the packaging, it's microscopic (look at the recent Beastie Boys CD). The first thing I do with a new CD is rip it, verify it plays on all of my PC's, and all of my CD and DVD players. If it doesn't, I return it. (And, yes, I even erase the ripped music.)
Re:more difficult to abide by today (Score:2, Interesting)
The store owner also keeps up on it and put's warning stickers on CD's that have that crap with an "WARNING THIS IS AS/IS because the Record company crippled it with anti-copy" he also only gives 1/
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:more difficult to abide by today (Score:5, Funny)
It's a game! My record is fourteen. By the way, it is cheating to not wear pants, which I wish I had known beforehand.
It's all DRM.. (Score:5, Funny)
iTunes is the best of the worst
That's like commending Syphilis for not being AIDS.
Re:It's all DRM.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's all DRM.. (Score:5, Funny)
Bad analogy. STDs want to be shared with other people.
Re:It's all DRM.. (Score:2)
I'd much rather get syphilis than AIDS:
Re:It's all DRM.. (Score:2)
He removes it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let us use OUR downloads as WE want. That means any player, any time, as long as I own it. Until then I will download for free or rip from CD.
Re:He removes it... (Score:4, Informative)
Yet I bet it comes with more protection next release.
It already has. Hymn and JHymn are unable remove the FairPlay "protection" from videos and music purchased from iTunes 6. Videos can only be downloaded in iTunes 6. Want to downgrade to iTunes 5 to buy your music? Too bad, once you buy something from the iTMS with 6, you can no longer use 4.x or 5 to make purchases. Hello DRM!
Re:He removes it... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't steal music. In this case, I'm refering specifically about buying it, and then being able to play it on something other than my laptop. Jhymn is the only way to play music I have paid for on my Slackware desktop, or my mythtv box in the living room. Your analogy is terminally flawed. It isn't akin to breaking into someone elses locked car. It's closer to if you buy a car, and then the manufacturer controls the door locks remotely so that you can only drive it at certain times, on certain roads, that only they approve, so you change the locks.
Ass.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Resistance is futile (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect this to change, soon. Your content will be encrypted at the source and will only be decrypted by the hardware, at the last possible phase, using your personal key and with proper authorization from the license server. As long as we put copyright law on the books, technology will be developed to allow it to be enforced. Live with it.
Re:Resistance is futile (Score:2)
Re:Resistance is futile (Score:3, Insightful)
Those aren't "copyrights", those are "licenses." Also, the GPL at least (I don't know about CC) does not give the end user any rights, nor does it take them away (which is why calling the GPL an "EULA" is inaccurate). The GPL only gives additiona
Huh. (Score:2)
Re:Resistance is futile (Score:2)
Re:Resistance is futile (Score:5, Insightful)
The fight for DRM cannot be won. Anything that can be listened to can be copied, and it only takes one technically savvy person to circumvenct it once, and the whole world can get it.
If things continue the way they have been, you can expect a full fledged War on Copyright Infringement just like our current War on Drug Users. It will be accompanied by a similar loss of personal freedoms, and be just as effective (i.e. not all).
Re:Resistance is futile (Score:2)
Re:Resistance is futile (Score:2)
Does your 1990 CD player play DVDs? Does it play 8-tracks? Does it play LPs or 45s? Does it play SACDs? DTS audio disks (sometimes called CDs)?
Technology marches on. Look how quickly and easily DVDs were adopted. Look how quickly and easily CDs were adopted. MP3s too.
The CD came out in what? 1982 or so. MP3s have been around for how long? Almost 10 years now. Its almost a crime to get an MP3. A 40-50 minute CD with 6-12 minutes of good music is exp
Re:Resistance is futile (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a solution: create a pool of free content.
Of course, right now, this mostly works for texts. Wikipedia, for example, evokes fears in publishers that only free content is passed on. More and more, their allegedly superior products are simply not relevant in public discussion because nobody is willing to pay the price for professional editorial review, DRM or not.
Sure, decent recording equipment is not actually cheap, and audio files need more bandwidth for trans
Disturbance in the Matrix (Score:5, Funny)
Did anybody else notice the disturbance in the Matrix?
Re:Disturbance in the Matrix (Score:4, Informative)
Glitch.
Glitch in the Matrix; disturbance in the Force.
Re:Disturbance in the Matrix (Score:2)
in Canada... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:in Canada... (Score:2)
Re:in Canada... (Score:3, Informative)
You can only make copies of the original and those copies can only be for your personal use.
If you borrow a CD from a library, you are allowed to make a copy of it to use. You could then lend the original to a friend and they could make a copy and return the original to you. You then return the original to the library. You, your friend and the library now all have legal copies of the music. You could also buy a CD and lend it to a friend for th
Re:in Canada... (Score:3, Informative)
It is NOT legal because you've paid for it through levies. It's legal because IT'S LEGAL.
Those levies are a red herring. It would be legal even without the levies. It has been for years. Don't bring those into this. They're just a money grab.
Don't use the levies as an excuse, either. Not only have they stopped collecting levies on things like iPods, but paying for things beforehand like this aren't an excuse for bad behaviour. If you buy bullets with a levy on them to compensate families of shootings
Burn Him! (Score:4, Funny)
Where art thou RIAA? He voluntary admits it and all! Sue! Sue! Sue! I hear there's an attorney named THompsons whose case just went away. Maybe he can help you out...
Only Apple... (Score:2, Funny)
I hear their CEO really gets the 'Jobs' done...
criminals? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I'm not sure why he would be offended, since most of their customers *do* display a propensity to steal their music.
It's like being offended that walmart has stolen goods detectors at the exits.
Re:criminals? (Score:2)
If they're customers, doesn't that mean that they're not stealing music?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:criminals? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:criminals? (Score:2)
Re:criminals? (Score:2)
Sure, I buy a DVD, CD etc. and then I am the one who steals????
What kind of logic is that?
I mean seriously.
When I go to the library and copy a CD I am also totally correct in doing this because I pay a levy on my blank media. Same goes if I borrow the CD from a friend and do the same thing.
Re:Arrrgh Analogies! (Score:3, Interesting)
No. It would be more like if Walmart put a goods detector in your house to check to make sure you weren't bringing in competitor goods or in fact making use of your goods in ways they did not want in order for you to pay twice for them.
Oh noes! It looks like you just used the plunger to clean the bathroom upstairs and it clearly states in the EULA that the plunger you purchased at Walmart must be used only for the licensed bathroo
What I dislike... (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft, being a maker of software based DRM-solutions, plays along nicely by reinforcing the record/movie industry's "threat" that they are "forced" to use DRM if future content should be playable at all in the future. This is _untrue!_ Even if many content industries want DRM, it's not needed, and we shouldn't give up and let them have it that way. Think about it, if a CD can be played in a stereo, even if the stereo has some kind of DRM, any competent taiwanese manufacutrer should be able to create a player for the computer, regardless if RIAA, MPAA or Microsoft likes that or not. That's the way it should be.
I am worried someday, somewhere, some freaking moron political figures will rule the computer is an "entertainment device" and must be managed with DRM (think Vista, Trusted Computing etc). That's the day we are all fucked, even if don't actually listen to music or watch TV.
Re:What I dislike... (Score:2)
Get back to us when you figure out that prereq.
Re:What I dislike... (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying you want new music to always be backwards compatible is like saying you want all new music to play on an old vinyl deck. With DRM at least there is a record of "this person has already bought this, so in fact we *can* authorise this do
Having does not mean using (Score:3, Insightful)
While I think most devices will have some form of DRM, I am not as worried about devices having DRM as having to use it.
I don't care if Blu-Ray has the most ass-backward DRM the universe has yet devised - as long as I can burn my own content on a Blu-Ray disc and play it using that player, and give it to other people to play. Similarily while the iPod supports DRM it also supports ways to use the i
Evangelist? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Evangelist? (Score:2)
Re:Evangelist? (Score:2)
Keep Buying Music, Avoid the RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
3rd party tools? (Score:2, Informative)
Summary nearly as long as the article (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose it's interesting that a former Apple guy should be taking a stance against Apple's current policy, but this isn't a particularly well-reasoned article. He's basically fed up with format change, and he's ticked off that there are things he thinks he ought to be able to do with the new format (copy it freely to every digital device) that he can't do.
There's nothing new in this article. He's trotting out the usual complaints about DRM without addressing the usual responses. The usual responses may or may not be adequate, but the article is less "Here's a new argument against DRM from a guy who knows" and more "Yet another guy is pissed off."
Re:Summary nearly as long as the article (Score:5, Insightful)
> thinks he ought to be able to do with the new format (copy it freely to every digital
> device) that he can't do.
No, it isn't the format change. We all know that is unavoidable. This is different. This is THEM assuming total control. In the past, all media was essentially free. You could loan it to a friend, make a working copy (dump an LP to tape for the road, etc) make mix tapes, etc. You couldn't make and sell copies, not because of a technoligical restriction but simply because, well it is illegal. Not anymore. They want the right to dictate where and how you will play it, how long you can play it and eventually will insist on the right to charge you by the play. Unless we say NO, right now.
Re:Summary nearly as long as the article (Score:2)
Re:Summary nearly as long as the article (Score:3, Insightful)
1) A format change has an upside. Typically - better quality, or more features. Vinyl sounded better than wax drums, tape allowed recording, CD sounded better than vinyl, etc. A CD with "copy protection" offers me nothing more than a regular CD, in fact - it offers me less. Unless you count a rootkit as a bonus.
2) A format change requires repurchase of equipment and media for technical reasons, not political ones. I had to rebuy my LPs on
My DVD thinks I am a criminal (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM = Big Brother (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DRM = Big Brother (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but the cynic in me just realizes the fact that people are too stupid to know what's going on, so before we know it all media and computers will be DRMed. Say goodbye to using media as you wish (portable players, computers, etc) and also hobby coding on your computer. Only "approved" software will run. But it will creep in as "protection" from virus, malware, etc.
People are idiots, and won't know what's going on until way after it's too late.
Sure, the few of us that get it can boycott all we want,
Why is it... (Score:2, Insightful)
The record companies want to make money, people want to control their stuff. So instead of bitching about it, then bending over and taking it, why doesn't someone come up with an alternative.
It seems like the extremes of this discussion are all I ever hear anymore. What is being proposed by people who see a business opportunity in a good compromise that satisfies everybody? Is there such a thing?
Here's a "reasonable alternative" for ya! (Score:2)
In other words, no, there probably isn't a compromise that'll work for the RIAA, because they're a bunch of insane, greedy fuckwads. What they'd better do is sit down, shut the fuck up, and leave us alone before somebody starts bombing their headquarters.
DRM not always bad (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that
Slashdotted text (Score:3, Informative)
if you want to read the 75 or so responses posted to his blog, you're out of luck here...
________
The latest episode in the war between music companies and their paying customers (the one where Sony decides it's OK to surreptitiously take over your PC so you can't make a copy of the music you thought you bought from them) has finally pushed me over the edge.
I've been a big buyer of prerecorded 'media' for over 35 years. I have two or three hundred vinyl LPs, several dozen 45's, a hundred or so audio cassettes, and roughly 60 prerecorded reel-to-reel tapes. They are jammed in my closet with a couple hundred VHS tapes, 450 CDs, and 500-odd DVDs. (Mercifully, I skipped the 8-track, Betamax and laserdisc formats.)
< image > media closet
Part of my media collection
I have to believe the record companies and movie studios would consider me a good customer. But with every day that passes it becomes more and more obvious that the greedy bastards who run these media companies prefer to treat me (and all their customers) like criminals. They continually expect us to pay more for less, and even then they are not satisfied. They want to pretend to 'sell' us their product, but they don't want us to actually have it. Well I've had enough.
From this day forward I will never spend a another dime on content that I can't use the way I please. If I can't copy it to my hard drive and play it using the devices I want, when and where I want, I won't be buying it. Period.
They can all take their DRM, and their broadcast flags, and their rootkits, and their Compact Discs that aren't really compact discs and shove them up their bottom-lines.
boycott is probably the *ONLY* way to stop them (Score:3, Insightful)
If people walk away from DRM media, and tell their friends to do the same thing, then they'll go away. Period. If people blindly let themselves get suckered into this process and put up with it, then they'll continue to get shafted.
You get what you put up with. it was true when workers struck against nasty employer tactics in the '20s and '30s and it's true now with DRM. When people stopped putting up with the nasty stuff, the laws finally got changed to something that recognized the source of the unrest.
Re:boycott is probably the *ONLY* way to stop them (Score:3, Interesting)
I've purchased several games that have refused to run without a NOCD patch due to who-knows-why.
Yeah, way to treat your paying customers.
Sadly, all I can do is send a complaint to the company because copy protections aren't exactly printed on the packaging, and stores don't take returns.
He should become a producer (Score:3, Insightful)
The best way to win over the hearts and minds of the people is to live your life as a shining example of the good behavior that you want emulated. That's going to be much more effective world change for DRM than whining in a blog.
Tipping Point (Score:3, Insightful)
I think with the Sony Rootkit and the publicity it's been getting, that we're reaching a tipping point. Music sales are down. People are already frustrated that they can't use music that they paid for, in devices that they paid for. Now they have to wonder - is this going to damage my PC? Expose it to malware and possible attack? The industry shot themselves in the foot years ago. They are continuing to do so, and have switched to heavy caliber weapons. It will be interesting to see how well music sells this holiday season.
"Piracy==lost sales" and other myths (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly, since when did the purchase of a CD change from "owning a copy" to "being licensed to experience the content"? I haven't seen a licensing agreement printed in any of the CDs I've bought. When I buy a DRM-unencumbered CD, I am owning that copy of the content. I can (and will) do whatever I want with it. Just because iTunes comes along and starts "licensing" the content in DRM-encumbered form, that doesn't mean that the nature of purchasing a raw CD has suddenly changed.
Thirdly, the entire public debate about copyright law, DRM, the DMCA, piracy, etc, all really boils down to one simple thing: what is ethical is not the same as what is legal, and vice-versa. The government is supposed to serve the people by refining the law until it accurately reflects what is ethical. Unfortunately what we have right now is a body of law that is radically divergent from what is ethical. Throughout history, whenever the government and the law have gone against what is ethical, civil unrest has resulted and has in fact been the only way to set things right. Digital piracy is just the latest form of civil unrest. Since the government is clearly in the pockets of rich special interests, piracy is the only form of civil unrest and demonstration the public has left at its disposal. So from an ethical stance, piracy is a good thing because it is the only counter-force fighting to swing the law and government back toward what is ethical.
"criminal" != "wrong" (Score:2)
If an act ISN'T WRONG, then yeah, people will do it. Does society consider filesharing wrong? The vast numbers of people doing it should clue you in.
"Customer?" Hah! (Score:4, Funny)
Now shut the fuck up and go join the rest of the sheeple at the mall.
Sincerely,
The RIAA
Re:true, but... (Score:2)
Depends on your interpretation of copyright law. The way I've read it, it says that copies are only prohibited when there's commercial gain. Therefore, personal, not-for-profit sharing is ok.
But IANAL, and I don't know how well that particular defense would hold up in court, considering the way the courts have been ruling lately on the **AA crap...
Re:Calling all editors! (Score:3, Funny)
Hang in there, trooper. It's like one of those bucking bronco rides. It takes practice. Eventually you'll be able to handle a triple or even a quadrupled phrase smoothly and cleanly.
Re:just to get this out of the way (Score:2)