Slashdot Mirror
Digital Restrictions Management for P2P Systems
Anonymous Coward writes "Digital restrictions management for an open-source peer-to-peer network. Researchers at the Georgia Tech Information Security Center have created a content protection system that is a plug-in for LimeWire/Gnutella. The paper argues that DRM is beneficial to everyone including independent musicians and end-users."
Not to say they have everything right, but "THE NEW VERSION, set to launch Thursday, will add to the flexibility of the subscription service by allowing unlimited song listening, as well as more compact-disc burning and permanent downloads that consumers can keep even after their subscriptions run out."
They're offering different levels of service depending on how much you pay (makes sense), but it looks like a step in the logical direction.
Company Website
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Theft is theft. It deprives you of your natural right to use your property, by depriving you of possession of your property.
Copyright violation is not theft. It arguably deprives you of your ability to collect revenues from your property (or reduces your potential revenues), but it does not deprive you of the actual property, which you can still use since you still possess it.
The rhetoric of "copyright violation *is* theft" is simply wrong, and ignores the fact that the score-keeper here is not revenues generated from a given property, but the property itself.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Our arguments that we use to defend our theft (as p2p users)...Theft is theft - that is simple
Copyright infringement is not theft, as it deprives no one of property. But this is only a side issue.
But now, because of scale, file sharing actually is putting a serious economic dent in the music biz.
so says the "music biz". I, however, would classify this as a straw man. The real cause of the downturn is the industry's overpricing. For a long time they were able to get away with it because there was no way around them. THey had a de-facto monopoly on distribution and are now upset that technology has weakened that control. The fact that people are abusing their fair-use rights does not, in my opinion, warrant revocation of those rights. Instead, the industry should review what they can do to encourage people to acquire music legitimately. Their complaint is along the lines of "We can't get $18 for a CD anymore"; the solution to said problem isn't "curtail the public's rights". Lower pricing is clearly indicated in this case. I'd wager that if the recording industry halved the price of music (and offered it for download even cheaper) it'd make up for the difference in volume. Well, perhaps not anymore. They may be too late. Their abuse of the power of distribution may have driven a great many customers away. I know it has me.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
They want $10 from me just so I can listen -- without burning or keeping anything. That's like paying for radio. (And no, I'm not an XM subscriber and am not planning to be.)
They want $18 from me if I want to burn and keep 10 songs a month. That's like paying full price for a CD, except that I have to supply the CD and make it myself, and don't get any liner notes, cover art, etc.
Conclusion: it's still overpriced.