'It's Always DRM's Fault' (publicknowledge.org) 172
A social media post from Anders G da Silva, who accused Apple of deleting movies he had purchased from iTunes, went viral earlier this month. There is more to that story, of course. In a statement to CNET, Apple explained that da Silva had purchased movies while living in Australia, with his iTunes region set to "Australia." Then he moved to Canada, and found that the movies were no longer available for download -- due, no doubt, to licensing restrictions, including restrictions on Apple itself. While his local copies of the movies were not deleted, they were deleted from his cloud library. Apple said the company had shared a workaround with da Silva to make it easier for him to download his movies again. Public Knowledge posted a story Tuesday to weigh in on the subject, especially since today is International Day Against DRM. From the post: To that rare breed of person who carefully reads terms of service and keeps multiple, meticulous backups of important files, da Silva should have expected that his ability to access movies he thought he'd purchased might be cut off because he'd moved from one Commonwealth country to another. Just keep playing your original file! But DRM makes this an unreasonable demand. First, files with DRM are subject to break at any time. DRM systems are frequently updated, and often rely on phoning home to some server to verify that they can still be played. Some technological or business change may have turned the most carefully backed-up and preserved digital file into just a blob of unreadable encrypted bits.
Second, even if they are still playable, files with DRM are not very portable, and they might not fit in with modern workflows. To stay with the Apple and iTunes example, the old-fashioned way to watch a movie purchased from the iTunes Store would be to download it in the iTunes desktop app, and then watch it there, sync it to a portable device, or keep iTunes running as a "server" in your home where it can be streamed to devices such as the Apple TV. But this is just not how things are done anymore. To watch an iTunes movie on an Apple TV, you stream or download it from Apple's servers. To watch an iTunes movie on an iPhone, same thing. (And because this is the closed-off ecosystem of DRM'd iTunes movies, if you want to watch your movie on a Roku or an Android phone, you're just out of luck.)
[...] My takeaway is that, if a seller of DRM'd digital media uses words like "purchase" and "buy," they have at a minimum an obligation to continue to provide additional downloads of that media, in perpetuity. Fine print aside, without that, people simply aren't getting what they think they're getting for their money, and words like "rent" and "borrow" are more appropriate. Of course, there is good reason to think that even then people are not likely to fully understand that "buying" something in the digital world is not the same as buying something in the physical world, and more ambitious measures may be required to ensure that people can still own personal property in the digital marketplace. See the excellent work of Aaron Perzanowski and Jason Schultz on this point. But the bare minimum of "owning" a movie would seem to be the continued ability to actually watch it.
Second, even if they are still playable, files with DRM are not very portable, and they might not fit in with modern workflows. To stay with the Apple and iTunes example, the old-fashioned way to watch a movie purchased from the iTunes Store would be to download it in the iTunes desktop app, and then watch it there, sync it to a portable device, or keep iTunes running as a "server" in your home where it can be streamed to devices such as the Apple TV. But this is just not how things are done anymore. To watch an iTunes movie on an Apple TV, you stream or download it from Apple's servers. To watch an iTunes movie on an iPhone, same thing. (And because this is the closed-off ecosystem of DRM'd iTunes movies, if you want to watch your movie on a Roku or an Android phone, you're just out of luck.)
[...] My takeaway is that, if a seller of DRM'd digital media uses words like "purchase" and "buy," they have at a minimum an obligation to continue to provide additional downloads of that media, in perpetuity. Fine print aside, without that, people simply aren't getting what they think they're getting for their money, and words like "rent" and "borrow" are more appropriate. Of course, there is good reason to think that even then people are not likely to fully understand that "buying" something in the digital world is not the same as buying something in the physical world, and more ambitious measures may be required to ensure that people can still own personal property in the digital marketplace. See the excellent work of Aaron Perzanowski and Jason Schultz on this point. But the bare minimum of "owning" a movie would seem to be the continued ability to actually watch it.
There is usally more to the story. (Score:4, Insightful)
We all love to be outraged when some company or government does something that would piss us off.
However normally if you dig into the details it isn't someone just trying to mess with you but a complex set of requirements and actions that have happened to cause it.
You can disagree with it, but save your outrage until you get the full picture.
Re:There is usally more to the story. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is always more to the story, but there is also the simple fact that DRM will eventually bite you in the ass if you purchase DRM media. The easiest answer is don’t buy DRM media unless you understand that it’s a lot more like renting than buying.
Re:There is usally more to the story. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you think "Digital Restrictions Management" [defectivebydesign.org] would make accessing content *less* restrictive? It's kind of right in the name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There is usally more to the story. (Score:5, Informative)
Sure. But "Digital Rights Management" is just a euphemism as far as the end user is concerned. It is indeed about managing rights, but not the rights of the consumer. It's marketing doublespeak. No, this is entirely about the rights of the person "selling" (renting) the content, and a mechanism for doing an end-run around copyright terms and limitations. Thus the term is really dishonest, and deliberately misleading to end users. No, Digital Restrictions Management is actually far more accurate of a description of what DRM is and does. It's not an ignorant thing people say like those who use "M$." Rather it's an accurate depiction of what DRM is intended by vendors to do. I say "vendors," rather than content creators, because these days content creators get abused as much as consumers do.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The 'R' stands for Rights - Digital Rights Management.
DRM manages "rights" in the same way that prison manages "freedom". We don't call prisons "freedom management centers" so why should we be bound to use the corporate newspeak when referring to DRM? The phrase Digital Restrictions Management is a more accurate description of what's actually happening. I use that phrase whenever I have the opportunity to do so, especially in conversations with non-technical people who want to know why their music or movies that they supposedly "bought" don't work anymore. Try
Re: (Score:2)
Only ever buy DRM infected media if you are 100% you can rip it to a free format.
I usually get the download from the Pirate Bay or wherever first, and then buy the physical media. Aside from not wasting energy re-encoding stuff, the pirate version will have been checked, tagged, artwork included and all files named correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame that someone got so butthurt over your display of common sense that they had to downmod your post.
Here is a meta +1 Insightful. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> You are not okay with some amount of copyright?
Except this isn't copyright. This is someone fucking with you after you've paid them.
Copyright makes it illegal for you to give other people copies and gives artists the standing to sue you and the government the standing to jail you.
Being fucked with after you've paid is not necessary.
Being fucked with if you haven't given anyone else a copy, is not necessary.
Nobody deleted the user's original copy. (Score:3)
In other words, 'copyright' doesn't mean what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair copyright would be:
- 10 years, an additional 5 if the holder is still alive
- Personal copies/backups allowed
- Mandatory licencing scheme for remix/sampling
- Mandatory licencing for re-use, e.g. in YouTube videos
- Harsh penalties for false copyright claims where due care and attention was not used
- Anything that limits these rights must be clearly marked on the product, similar to health warnings on cigarette packets etc.
Re:There is usally more to the story. (Score:4, Interesting)
I am okay with incentivizing creation.
Heck, let's pour on more than we do now! Prolekistan is about to lose their only export and we're woefully underprepared. One of the few reliable human domains is Come Up With New Shit.
I am not okay with imaginary property.
Are extraterrestrials aware that some monkeys with briefcases in a glass cube called dibs on that shoelace knot? Everywhere in the universe, simultaneously, forever. Even after Joe Brown has ceased brainwave activity he has rights on brainwaves. I couldn't discuss the morals if i wanted to; before that, we have a very weird expectation of sheer technical logistics, preempting anything else.
Assuming I did recognize the ownership as viable, I then have a problem assigning product value on a non-product. We have never seen a free market, but insisting that "GGADAGC starting at 82.0Hz" requires an exchange of goods, intrinsically, is the accepting of a construct in a manner only matched by Christianity. Gander than the diamond cartel, who at least dealt in scarce-ifying a quantified tangible.
All that said, I have no idea how we could accomplish a cash system for creation. It's hard to do without coming up with random ass rules, easily exploited bullshit, ass-eating contrived logic, unsupported conclusion leaps, etc.
i.e. what we have right now
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing here that justifies DRM or copyright. They aren't justifiable.
If we didn't have copyright there would be nothing to enforce the freedom of free software. Device vendors could take free code, augment it, bundle it up in devices and never distribute the code or allow it to be changed.
Re: (Score:3)
How is that different from what happens now? Just how many private developers have sued over free software being redistributed without the code. Try suing a company like google and see where it gets you? If you don't go bankrupt from legal costs what are the chances you haven't violated one of their numerous copyrights and patents.
It is a license nightmare why should you have to release all your code because you include 1 library or worse still a library that includes a library that includes a library tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The word "buy" has had a well known, universally understood, meaning for aeons. When I buy something, the onus to deliver is on the seller. The "complex set of requirements and actions" are not my problem, they are the seller's. He committed to sell, now he must deliver.
If he does not like that, he should not use the word "buy" combined with a million word EULA of legalese in a an attempt to redefine the meaning of the word.
Legally he may be right, but that just makes him an asshole. In every meaningful mea
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the EULA most often shows up only AFTER you have paid for a product. At which point getting a refund is incredibly difficult, and will typically be disallowed.
Licensing is more complicated these days, and the sorts of things included in todays licenses are nothing whatsoever like licenses in the past so the customer can make few assumptions about what may be in the license. You really do not know what you're getting until after you buy it.
Re:There is usally more to the story. (Score:4, Interesting)
while the requirements MAY be complex (they often aren't) misrepresentation IS the core issue.
If the "complex requirements" result in a product that is not salable without misrepresentation or terms that require extensive legal review... Perhaps the problem lies there, not with the consumers outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There is usally more to the story. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure it's a felony. If it is, then it's really sad that these relatively civil issues have become criminal issues.
Re: (Score:2)
That may shift who should get the blame, but it hardly excuses the problem.
Re:There is usally more to the story. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am old fashioned and I like building a library of music and movies, even if it's a digital one. Streaming's no good precisely because of this issue: Netflix doesn't renew their license or I move to a different country or whatever, and stuff randomly disappears. Like the removal guys stealing a couple of my books when I move house. Here's a deal for the movie companies: sell me a license that entitles me to a copy of your movie. You don't need to actually provide the file or a disc, I can get the file myself, not to worry. Save us both a little money and hassle. As long as that license continues to grant me the right to have that movie in whatever format on any device, in perpetuity. I'll pay, gladly.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is even Hollywood might not actually have the right to give you that kind of license. Unless you want to pay for license upgrades - i.e., you buy "HD now" and then "4K upgrades" and "8K license upgrade".
The reason is simple - a lot of contracts may not have allowed for some provisions. Early movies did not have a "home video" provision - because the idea of
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds overly complex and should be changed to something more reasonable. Which means it won't happen.
Re: (Score:3)
The "more to the story" here is that sellers of content will say you can "buy" when in reality you can only rent the content. False advertising. If you buy anything with DRM, know that you will lose access to it someday if you don't take proactive measure to make fair use copies of it (even if technically illegal in some countries).
Re: (Score:2)
When I first got an iphone in 2008, I decided I'd give their music purchases for $1 a shot. You see, I not longer had to spend $17 on a CD with two good songs on it. Something happened to my phone and I reloaded it, but Apple wouldln't allow me access to the music I'd purchased. Even worse,when I relented and decided to buy it again, they told me I already owned it. So I went right back to the torrents I went. I tried to play ball, they made it difficult.
Intellectual property isn't (Score:1)
Problem solved.
Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is still the absolute #1 reason why piracy is better than paying outright for a "product" (service?)
Re: (Score:2)
You're early. Talk Like a Pirate Day is tomorrow.
Re:Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Theft is theft
Words are words. Copyright violation is not theft, it's copyright violation. We can't have nice things because the best way to monetize media is the two-pronged approach of first getting laws passed that favor your industry, then using those laws to sell the same thing over and over again. It's perfectly valid to point out the lunacy of our current legal situation in regards to copyright.
Re:Piracy (Score:5, Informative)
No it isn't. You repeating the Big Lie won't make it any more true.
Attempting to criminalize my use of what I've paid for it not something you can justify with any existing moral or ethical theory short of pure boot licking corporatism.
I'm a paying customer. You can just fuck off.
Re: (Score:1)
As long as you actually paid for it first, then sure. If you just got the torrent, you are a thief.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the interesting thing about your argument. I didn't say copyright violation was good or legal, I just said it wasn't theft. The only place we disagreed was on exactly how the law was violated. If someone went to your concert, made a recording without permission, and packaged and sold it at Walmart, they would be guilty of copyright violation. If you took them to court and claim "theft" on the petition, you would lose. If you took them to court and claimed "copyright violation", you would win.
This isn
Re:Piracy (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright law is very clear about some things. For example fair use allows you to make a private backup copy, and this is supported by law in many countries. If you buy a book, you are allowed to scribble in the margins of the pages, tear out pages, add new pages, make photocopies of the pages that you only keep for yourself, and so on. DRM bypasses that exceptions and attempts to prevent them. DRM wants to make it so that the book you bought can vanish at any time (oops, the bookstore wasn't supposed to sell you that book, so the goons will knock on your door and yank it back). DRM will prevent making private backups. DRM will prevent modifying your copy in any way, as well as make sure that your copy will change if the owner wants it to change.
Copyright laws actually place limits on the copyright holders!
So yes, DRM will make it so that your copy can vanish and you're forced to buy it a second time if you want to see the content again. Of course, smart people will refuse to buy it again but that's only a minority of customers.
One big thing that DRM often does is forbid reselling your copy to someone else. This is something protected by law in many countries. You buy a book and then after reading it you are allowed by law to give it to a friend, donate to a library, or sell to a used book store. DRM stops this cold. You can't give away the movie you bought, or the game, or the music. Copyright law has not caught up to this digital technology yet, so the law will allow options that DRM forbids.
To make this all worse, there have been laws passed to forbid figuring out how the DRM works in order to modify it and gain back your legal rights. This is like making it illegal to force a burglar out of your house.
Anyone who thinks that DRM is merely copy protection is naive.
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, DRM will make it so that your copy can vanish and you're forced to buy it a second time if you want to see the content again.
Who said you're allowed to buy it again?
For security reasons, this version is no longer supported. We took it away from you for your own good!
Technically yes, ethically does not have to be (Score:4, Interesting)
People like you are why we can't have nice things. Theft is theft.
Ahh, but what if you pay for a movie on a service like iTunes, *then* download the pirated content as a form of backup?
I do like providing money for people that make content I enjoy, that way they get some money and you get the desired level of freedom.
That is technically theft but ethically it's not theft to me. Nor would it be to most people. I wonder if you did that, as long as you did not re-share the content if there's a jury anywhere that would convict you.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I also try contact the author directly when I really appreciate a CD or a book and pay the full amount as a Paypal donation.
Re: (Score:1)
The case would never be so simple of course. If you only made a personal backup and it never got shared, how would it even get discovered unless by pure happenstance. Such a thing could happen if you got raided by the police for anything and they grabbed your file storage.
Having a few dozen/hundreds/thousands of movie files will grab attention.
It's explainable but when they begin the character assassination for whatever else you were doing that got the police at your door in the first place, you are so dead
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not theft since no one loses their item, and I never agreed to the idea that I can't use your ideas. Other people just made that up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The implementation used to be just fine. Copyright lasted for a limited amount of time, enough for the creator to profit from the work. Copyright used to have clear cut allowances for fair use, you could make personal backups, buy the work and then resell it, and so forth.
What we have today is nothing whatsoever like this. The big IP holders have essentially written their own laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Physical media can still have DRM. What optical formats came after CDs? Oh, right: DVDs and BluRays, both DRMed. CDs are an anomaly in an optical disc world otherwise gone mad.
Physical-media-vs-files is orthogonal to the topic of DRM. A few old physical formats do happen to lack DRM, but others have it. And files can lack DRM too, as you'll see from bandcamp purchases.
It's simply not about files vs physical. It's about DRM vs normal.
Re: (Score:2)
CD is not going anywhere.
HELL, even vinyl is making a comeback. The way things are going, it looks like PCs will go out of style before physical media.
Not that "but it plays on a computer" is terribly meaningful. Most people have no interest in pulling out a PC to play something and curated mobile devices are even less controllable than DRM infested streaming libraries.
Re: (Score:2)
> Nobodyâ(TM)s health or wellbeing is suffering from lack of new movies or music.
Piracy also never killed the profitability of a creative work that wasn't a festering pile of crap. People will pay for stuff if its' any good even if pirated copies are easy to get and readily available.
Save the Angst (Score:4, Insightful)
He already bought it, go to your favorite torrent site and re-download the video.
I see no moral quandry to doing this.
Re: (Score:1)
I DO see a moral problem with giving money to abusers. By paying people who use this terrible DRM at all, one strengthens its position in the market. This allows the abusers to thrive, and keep on abusing.
Don't be an enabler. Just don't pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we just call it HOSTED services again? (Score:2, Insightful)
So sick of the Cloud marketing jargon nonsense... do we have to use it on a tech website, too?
Day against DRM is day before Talk Like a Pirate! (Score:2)
I just love how this digital holiday comes the day before a true Pirates day!
I've never heard of Day against DRM - so maybe they did this on purpose. But this story is the reason I dislike DRM and purchasing from iTunes. Apple Tv is just so darn convient - I can't possibly download all of those movies. Nor do I know that they'd be playable "next year" on a new device.
Hence my rather large BluRay collection. All I need is for the industry to keep making bluray players.
darn.
Music has been DRM-free for a while (Score:2)
I know the topic is TV shows and movies, but keep in mind that Apple has not sold any DRM-infected music for nine years [macworld.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about music bought on the iTunes store.
You're talking about their bug-ridden iTunes Match service.
Two different things.
Keep em coming.... (Score:2)
The more more stories of normal consumers (not tech nerds) getting things taken away on account of DRM the better. The pressure is rising, and hopefully customers will begin to think twice about paying for the long term rentals our tech companies are masquerading as purchases.
one reason why I still buy physical discs (Score:1)
I absolutely own the CD/DVD/Bluray discs in my cupboard.
I can copy and play them any time, any where on my devices.
I can play them when the network goes down (and/or power goes out)--not dependent on streaming.
Re: (Score:1)
Download vs online (Score:4, Insightful)
The main thing is if the seller has provided you the ability to download and keep a perpetual copy, then they have definition provided you a copy. At that point any online redownload following a local deletion should be seen as a bonus.
If on the other hand your purchase is not downloadable, then you should be challenging the notion of buying.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer? Class action lawsuit... (Score:1)
... and not just to a particular provider - in general against anyone who releases content with DRM.
The basis? The US constitution guarantees that copyrights are of limited duration. Even though congress continually extends that period, it must be finite. Since congress, in its DCMA wisdom, makes breaking DRM illegal, content consumers must be indemnified somehow.
At a minimum, providers of DRM content should escrow either the unprotected content or some monetary compensation in anticipation of the eventu
Oregon Trail (Score:4, Insightful)
I purchased Oregon Trail from iTunes and GameLoft took it out of the store. I'm super pissed because it should still work on my older iPad, but I'll never get to play it again. The icon is still on my iPhone as proof I bought it at one point.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you not go to the Purchased section in the App Store on your iPad and redownload it? I can still see (nearly?) all of the apps I ever purchased in there, even ones the developers took down years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no longer there. It was a year or so ago last time I checked. So currently the only copy is on my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird.
It should be possible to restore from a phone backup to your iPad, so that would be one way of transferring it over, though you'd then need to set your iPad back up as you like. Alternatively, it used to be the case that you could backup apps to iTunes on a PC/Mac and then sync them between devices that way, but I think they may have removed that functionality at some point in the last year or two.
Anyway, sorry to hear that's the case.
Caveat emptor... Chose whose chains you wear (Score:3, Interesting)
The one thing I learned about stuff like eBooks and other DRM-encumbered media is to buy it from the vendor that is the easiest to decrypt. I don't use iBooks, because there are no decryption methods, and one is locked to an Apple platform. Kindle and Kobo, I can use a tool to decrypt my eBooks, throw the decrypted copies into Calibre, and continue on with life. I have purchased tens of thousands of eBooks, and because I did my homework, I can read them anywhere, or even print them out and have a usable hardcopy. Had I bought the books from the Apple Store, I would be limited on the devices I could use... i.e. only current iWhatzits.
Re: Caveat emptor... Chose whose chains you wear (Score:1)
Tens of thousands? Wow, I'm struggling at around 1500 ebooks and already onto my third Kindle. Totally agree with stripping DRM and using Calibre to manage your library. I've done similar with audio and moving from a few hundred gigs of MP3s to rapidly approaching a few terabytes of FLAC. Will likely never complete the move from DVD to 4K video content though as they take so long to rip it's easier to stick with my original media for now.
DRM doesn't work. Period. (Score:5, Interesting)
You're deploying your content to a turing complete device. DRM won't work. It will either be ineffective or so bad it will regularly screw over your most loyal customers. All others will get the rips because it's waaaay less hassle without DRM.
It's a crying shame if you are in the business and haven't gotten that into you thick stupid skull by now.
Forget DRM and offer a good purchasing experience and people will flock to you in droves. Best current example: gog.com.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why piracy endures (Score:5, Insightful)
Content owners just don't get it, either because they are too set in their ways, or else because they are too stupid. Piracy's motivation is not, for the most part, a desire to get people to save a few dollars. Its motivation is to empower people to access the material promptly, conveniently, at all times, everywhere. I am willing to venture that most people do not resort to the Pirate Bay and others because it is free. They do so because it is convenient. Official offerings seem to be keen on making it as difficult and inconvenient as possible to access the material, with constraints on where, when, and in what devices you are allowed to play the material. The Pirate Bay and others make it easy and convenient, while at the same time removing those artificial constraints. Also, nobody will sneakily remove any material that you have obtained from such sites.
Content owners can of course do whatever they want with the material that they own. But things won't change much in piracy front for as long as they remain stubbornly anchored in their obsolete business model. Unless, of course, they want to bring about police state-like controls, that is. The realistic choices for them are either to make less money out of their content than before, or to make no money at all.
Re: (Score:2)
> I am willing to venture that most people do not resort to the Pirate Bay and others because it is free.
That definitely would be an interesting stat to have! Though I'm not sure how one could accurately measure this?
Also, I imagine the reasons _why_ one would visit sites like TPB *overlap:*
I.e.
[x] I *already* bought a copy but I'm traveling without physical access,
[x] "Cuz it's free, man!"
[x] It's convenient.
[x] "Stick it to the man(agenent)!"
[x] "Sharing is caring."
[x] I just collect everything.
[ ] Oth
Re: (Score:2)
Most people who I know that visit the Pirate Bay et al web sites do it ... because it's free. I know a few people who purchased old-school Apple iPod (the big ones) and fill it with all the free music they can find. Then buy a hacked Roku box to get the free shows.
Admittedly, neither one has the money to buy shit. But they download far more than a few favorites.
Another guy I knew was into Tennis and would visit several offsite streaming services. He liked to watch the big matches and they weren't avai
'So it really WAS DRM's Fault'! (Score:1)
Why did someone feel that there was more to the story? He bought movies, Apple removed them, DRM made it possible for Apple to steal them from him. End of story. That Apple had their asses covered with legal documents that made this legal for them was never in question.
And people wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
And people wonder why (and sometimes snicker at the fact that) I still buy physical blurays and music CDs. I rip them (still legal here), put them on my NAS and store them away. I never have to worry about DRM crap.
This is why... (Score:1)
My US iTunes account has never region jumped. I have that account and one here in Japan for Japanese purchases. The US iTunes is linked to my US credit card and mailing address, so I can continue to buy shows and movies as they come out. This is especially important with movies that usually come out in the US on DVD before they even hit the theater in Japan. I've got a 12TB RAID that downloads them as I purchase them. Need to upgrade to something bigger soon...
Funny thing . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have this problem playing my CDs. I put them in my player, any player, and they play.
No matter where I go, they work.
Must be this new fangled technology we hear is supposed to make our lives easier that is causing the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have this problem playing my CDs. I put them in my player, any player, and they play.
No matter where I go, they work.
Must be this new fangled technology we hear is supposed to make our lives easier that is causing the issue.
Play your Region 1 DVD movie disc in a player in say, Japan. What’t you say it doesn’t play?
Keep doing it. (Score:2)
Who buys movies these days? Just stream them. (Score:3)
This Is Not News (Score:2)
dont buy, be a pirate (Score:2)
I Boycott All DRM (Score:2)
If I have to get it with DRM, I don't get it.
We had it made with vinyl and tape. I used to have the dolby-enhanced cassettes for the car, made tapes with exactly what I wanted to hear, and played them, no corporate interference involved. For home, I had a big reel-to-reel, with the 10 1/2" reels, with hours of music that a played through my 100 W / channel Sansui electronics that I bought while in the Air Force at Ramey AFB, Puerto Rico in the early 70's. There was, BTW, no tape hiss with that. Every
Explain to me again how this is "simple" (Score:2)
Whereas my system involves (1) insert disc in player
(2) press desired buttons on front of player.
Sounds like th
Re: (Score:1)
Not if it has DRM on it. Circumventing those restrictions to make an archival had a temporary exemption a few years ago, but is now prohibited again.
Re: (Score:2)
And you are letting that stop you?
Anything I want to purchase that I may want to keep permanently is going to be backed up irrespective of whether or not it is legal.
Re: (Score:1)
Copyright, DRM, even patents and the DMCA are all about one thing, the right of the creators to earn from their creations. Please don't advise piracy unless including a solid solution to paying the creators for their creations. And yes, sure there is a lot of abuse happening to those systems, but I am just sick and tired of people advocating piracy with no thought for the people whom created the content, I personally think anyone thinking like that are leeches, and not worth the time of day.
Re:Legal backups, illegally performed (Score:4, Informative)
Making a backup for your own personal use is not piracy. DRM goes far beyond copyright law, since DRM is intended as a method to bypass the law and apply more restrictions on the customers than copyright law allows. The law has said that time shifting of content is legal, but DRM has the power to nullify that and forbid time shifting. All it takes to work are governments too lazy or incompetent to push back against these things.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, for my part I am not "purchasing" any DRM movies or music. I will stream from some services or even occasionally use a pay-per-view with full knowledge that I won't watch it a second time. For many things, I will wait until the price drops to what seems reasonable for a mere rental. Ie, I'm not paying full price for games. Occasionally I have paid GOG to get a DRM-free version of a game real cheap for an older game that game infected with Steam.
Re: (Score:1)
I hate drm as much as the next /.er but you need to pay the creator of the work. Pay whatever price you could get the movie at and make a copy on your computer/NAS/Wherever. Don't distribute this copy to anyone. It's for your personal library, such as if you had physical disc on a shelf that could only be in one place at one time.
That would be how things would work in an honest world. The content creator is paid and the consumer given a usable product.
If you just download the content and never pay anyone an
Re:Yeah well legitimate use says I can make a back (Score:4, Interesting)
In my opinion, the reality is that media consumption is an increasingly global and almost homogeneous market, divided more by language than national borders. Other English speaking regions have come to expect access to first run media at the same time as the US markets
What I think should be done is to release titles in their original language in every country that speaks that language at the same time, with dubbed and/or subbed versions being released the same way as various language versions are available. Thus, the Australian market would have access to everything available in the US, UK Canada etc markets. A release from France would be available in Belgium, Canada, Haiti and so on. What I'm not sure of is whether machine translation of spoken word or print is good enough for a publisher to use to speed up and reduce the cost of distributing in other languages. The machine translation of text I've seen is certainly good enough to get the gist across, good enough for basic communication, but not quite good enough for say an official Russian edition of Harry Potter. Once machine translation is good enough for a release of a major title, going after the long tail of smaller foreign language markets gets much cheaper. But that does require that the media producers and IP holders get past the idea of being able to see significant income on A-list titles for years.
I'm not sure, not being a Hollywood accountant, but I suspect one hurdle that most people don't consider is that there are a number of people who get paid out of local market releases that never see a dime of foreign release revenue. It's to the IP holders advantage to keep the two markets separate as a result.
Re: (Score:3)
Morally and ethically you can make a backup. The law even supports this in most countries. However there are laws in some countries that forbid making copies. In other words, there exist countries in which there are laws that contradict each other. You really won't find a better armed force of lobbyists than those working for the big IP holders. Given that those big IP holders are also popular with the majority of potential customers there isn't much pushback in the market to discourage this behavior.
I
Re: (Score:3)
Laptop? No, don't be ridiculous.
But music CDs? When the whole "music pirating" shitstorm started decades ago, the music industry was pushing for the fact that you are buying a license to listen to the music. In that sense, you should be able to go into Best Buy with a proof of purchase (which they should be keeping themselves, shared between all their stores... blockchain?) and pay for the cost of a replacement CD only since you already paid for the license.
Re: (Score:2)
They pushed for it, but they didn't get it. CD licensing never ended up happening, despite the absurd proposals.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say in the future your auto stops working. The text on the console says "License Revoked". You tow it to have service and they say "sorry dude, you need to get a new car, it seems you attempted to change the oil by yourself." This amazingly is not as far fetched as it sounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Too bad taking a case to court takes a lot of time and money vastly exceeding the cost of the original product.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing that such a thing only needs sorted out one time for the benefit of many, then -- eh?
It's not like we all have to individually file our own lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you better record them to MP4 and save that file with multiple backups when you can, or it will eventually go bye-bye. F them and their DRM.