Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the Future of DRM Media
MrFancyPants writes "'DRM, digital rights management, is quite possibly the holy grail of the music and movie industry, allowing them to control exactly how DRM protected content is used, distributed and above all can be tracked right down to the individual end user.' Hardware Analysis reports on a horror story of someone picking up a DVD recently and having to go through an agonizing process of installing DRM-enabled applications to even get it to play on his computer. If this is what the future holds, you'd better think twice about buying DVDs and other media, as you're basically at the mercy of the producer."
People pay money for products that suit their needs. If a product fails to meet the needs of the user, they can:
- bitch and complain
- return the product
- don't buy such products in the future.
If what the xxAA sells suits the needs of enough customers, they'll be successful with it. If they're overly restrictive then they'll fail. Obviously they think that most consumers won't mind the limitations, or even notice them.
Is that so difficult to understand? Just because YOU can't rip a DVD doesn't mean that the MPAA will care.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
From the article: That agreement, amongst other things, stated that I could only play back the content for a period of five days, on the computer I installed the InterActual Player application onto, after which I had to re-acquire a license.
Plenty of time to make a "fair use" DivX copy. And share it on BitTorrent just out of spite.
Just
> better think twice about buying DVDs and other media, as you're basically at
> the mercy of the producer
Not just that - most users simply aren't capable of installing all that crap even if they wanted to. Loads of people have problems even double or right clicking on something (and I'm not just talking about Apple customers, either).
Coralized link of the DRM'ed T2 Extreme DVD
Quick summary for all those too lazy to read the article:
Content needed WMP9 with InterActual Player, which required a license, which could only be retrieved if you connected from US or Canada. And, the content could only be played for 5 days. Author concludes "Shame on you Artisan Home Entertainment Inc. and may this serve as a prime example of DRM at its worst."
Gan Family Homepage
They're gonna try this because they are stupid and need to be dragged kicking and screaming into every new market that opens for them, but ultimately the power is in *our* hands because we have the money they want. When we stop buying DVDs that are overpriced and burdensome, they'll dump the DRM.
DRM isn't nearly as valuable to them as... say... having a market for them in the first place. When the returns start coming back to retailers from people like my mother-in-law, they'll relent.
Trust me.
She's very persuasive.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
If sales of the DRM versions of films stink, then the powers that be won't be able to implement them profitably. We need to make sure that the cost in lost sales due to DRM techniques pissing of the customer exceed the lost sales due to the media being copiable. Of course this is easier said than done, as there are millions of customers that need to be organized versus just a few production companies that can easily rally together, but it is the only way that production companies will get the message.
It's like DIVX (no, not the video compression, the now defunct DVD competitor that had embedded DRM), DIVX movies were cheaper than DVD's but they had a limited license that had to be renewed for multiple viewing (like pay per view). Customers rejected it and it (thankfully) died an ugly death.
this is a repost of an AC post I did by accident.
I used to buy a pile of music cd's. Even after mp3's appeared, even after napster and their ilk... I liked having the CD, and I liked having the highest possible quality recording I could get.
What has happened now, is that the last two "CDs" I've bought had DRM on them, and the only reason I bought them is because I love the two bands (radiohead and the tea party). I can't play them without putting special sfotware on my XP box. Which I refuse to do because it's stupid and I paid for the CD in the first place.
So now I never listen to those two CDs.
And then I realised, why buy something I never listen to?
So I dont buy anymore CD's. That was a year ago.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
If I can see it, I can copy it. If I can hear it, I can record it.
At some point, no matter how high-tech the DRM gets, the data must be presented in a form humans can perceive. All the encryption in the world won't stop little Mikey from holding a microphone up to the outputs and making a non-DRM copy.
To anyone who says that such a copy will be inferior in quality, I note two points:
1) The loss only occurrs once. The non-DRM copy can then be shared digitally with no further loss of quality.
2) The original work was recorded from the air. The band actually played its song, or the actor actually did his thing. If similar technology is used to create the non-DRM copy, the loss will be negligible. (Imagine a home theatre system set up on a soundstage in someone's basement, with pickups and equipment to record its "performance")
People also seem to have this irrational fear that the old technology will suddenly disappear. My digital camcorder is pretty good, and it will still exist when the world is DRM'd. So will my mp3 player, and so will my non-DRM compliant microphones.
Furthermore, there will be a high demand for DRM-noncompliant technology. Even if it is illegal, I predict a briskly moving black market in such technology. If there's a dollar to be made, someone will make it.
As for watermarking: pay cash.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
The movies people download don't have DRM to hassle with. So now on top of getting the movie for free, they get possibly a better product.
When will these industries learn that you can't slow P2P by pissing off legitimate customers?
So, a post advocating breaking the law is Insightful?
Look, if you insit on violating the IP rights of others, or supporting that violation (whether explicitly or implicitly, eg by modding up this sort of comment), then don't complain when someone takes GPLed code, modifies it, then releases it without making the source available.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
My family used to buy about a dozen CD's per year. I'd take the CD's - convert it to MP3's - put it on my home server for listening at home, and download individual MP3's to my MP3 player for music on the go and in my car. First time I bought a CD that was DRM'ed and couldn't be extracted - I stopped buying CD's. Haven't bought one in over two years. If the studios load up DVD's with DRM to the point that they can't be used - DON'T BUY THEM! Abusing your customers is not a viable long term business strategy.
[Insert pithy quote here]
in the ONLY language they understand - revenue!
Return the DVD to the store for a refund.
If you don't hit them in the sales, they'll NEVER hear your message. If you keep the DVD and gripe online, they won't HEAR your message quite as clearly as if you return it. True, they will see reduced revenue as Slashdotters stay away from the DVD, but it won't be quite as direct.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
For context, I am in the USA.
If the commercial says "Buy the movie now" but the packaging says you are only licensing the movie, isn't this called false advertising?
Shouldn't the commercial be "Get your license to view this movie as we see fit, including 20 minutes of commercials that play each time you view the movie - which you cannot skip."?
I had a comic book character I invented that is out for Justice, but is blinded to think all crimes are equal. It starts out with the Indiscriminator perched above a bank and it shows two robbers running out below. He jumps off the bank in pursuit, but Wait theres a bunch of fleeing citizens. Whats more, some are jaywalking! So the Indiscriminator stops his pursuit of the bank robbers to beat up some jaywalkers. Later issues have him diving off an overpass to rip open the roof of a car thats speeding. He then beats up the driver.
God spoke to me.
DRM, digital rights management
Who do you think invented that term? if you call it digital rights management you are playing right into their pathetic marketing game. Call it digital restrictions management - a far more fitting description?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
There's a lot of posts here saying that if we don't like it, stop buying DRM'd CDs and DVDs and they will drop it. No they won't. If we stop buying DVDs and CDs the RIAA and MPAA will turn around and blame it on file sharing and tighten up DRM further. We can't win.
Based on the current situation, I personally don't think it is a big deal to pay money to rent a DVD and then keep a copy for _personal_ use only.
If the current situation was not how it currently is with DRM and all the other crap, then I _would_ think it was wrong to rent a DVD and then keep a copy for _personal_ use. Because the system would be balanced between producer and consumer and _everyone_ would get a fair shake.
That is why I don't feel sorry for all the people crying about "thier IP rights". Stop taking away _my_ rights as a customer and I won't take away your "IP" rights. Just sell me a product with NO DRM and then get off my back. Don't try and stop me from making a backup for _personal_ use. Don't try and stop me from watching the content where and how I want to. I paid you, now leave me alone until it is time for our next "business transaction".
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
As someone who doesn't illegally rip material, I'm starting to find all the DRM stuff annoying.
I bought Dido's second album, for example, only to discover that you can only play it on a PC through a proprietary software player (assuming your OS will run it, naturally). That player sucks, and does annoying things like messing up my system-wide volume levels. I haven't tried personally, but I'm reliably informed that it doesn't work in some car CD players, either.
The point here is that what I bought was marketted as a CD. It was right there on the shelf in the CD section, next to other CDs, with nothing obviously saying that it wasn't. To be fair, there may have been a note about whether or not you could play it on certain computers visible in the small print; I can't remember and don't have it with me to check. But who reads all the small print when buying a CD from the CD section of a shop?
Now, "Compact disc" is a trademark of Philips, as is the CD logo you see on cases. Philips officially denies permission to use that mark to companies using technology that prevents playing the disc properly on standard equipment. (Google for this if you're interested.) Thus anyone marketting the material in the manner I saw it (be it a record shop, the music publishers, or whoever) is infringing on Philips' rights, and deserves to get smacked down for it.
It's a shame Philips don't seem to be pursuing this more aggressively, because preventing this kind of dilution of a mark is exactly what trademark law is for. I imagine that if all record shops were suddenly required to separate out normal CDs and copy-protected not-quite-CDs in an obvious way, sales of the latter would probably drop PDQ, and the problem would disappear just as fast. I can only assume that since everyone's doing it, they want a clear test case in their favour first to make it quick, easy, and most of all cheap to follow up with others. Maybe they're looking for such a test case and just waiting to make their move. Maybe they just don't care, but as one of the world's biggest manufacturers of CD/DVD burners, that seems unlikely.
Anyway, the bottom line is that I really haven't bought a new CD since that album. I was always fairly selective, but I did buy a few each year until that point. So they really have lost a genuine, paying customer in me. I don't find the loss has ruined my life; I listen to the radio if I want to hear some new music, and occasionally use a legal download service if I really like a track I've heard. Now I'm a living own-goal for the media industry's DRM technology. Anyone else?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
DVD regions were added to control distribution, in order to make as much money as possible. Now, people got fed up, and started cracking it as a response, or they simply downloaded the DVD or DVD-rip instead of having to wait for the latest and greatest movies to reach their country/region.
DRM is ultimately about control, as this story proves. It is not about piracy at all. It's about forcing people to license things for limited periods of time, thereby squeezing more money out of us.
Don't kid yourself with ignorant comments like "it was the industries' response to people who wantonly ignored copyright laws". It wasn't at all. It's just an excuse. DRM is about controlling distribution and forcing people to pay more for less.
Clever signature text goes here.
You see, there is a parallel to the industrial revolution here in the information age.
History teaches that during the 1800's there were many people who believed that the entire meaning and purpose of the industrial revolution was to leverage inventions like the cotton gin to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit.Ironically just the opposite was true,the industrial revolution actually demanded a mobile and skilled workforce.
They responded first by making slavery last forever, and making laws so harsh you couldn't even teach a black person how to read. Then they responded by trying to micro-regulate the northern states, then they responded by trying to break off from the Union and fence themselves off from the rest of the world, and all hell broke loose.
Today many in media circles believe that the entire meaning and purpose of the information age is to use inventions like the internet to leverage their copyright holdings to the far reaches of the earth for unlimited growth and profit.Ironically,just the opposite is true,the information age demands the unrestricted flow of information.
At first they responded my making copyrights last effectively forever, then they responded by making it so that illegal copying could be punished worse than rape, then they tried to micro-regulate the tech industries (DMCA) then they fence the information that they controlled off from the rest of the world (DRM). It is only a matter of time before society tells them to go to hell, and all hell breaks loose.
The problem isn't so much DRM, but rather that the consumer is being utterly defrauded about what they are getting for their money.
I have no problems with DRM that would enforce existing rights I may have as a user of copyright material: time shifting, media shifting, lending out media, selling media, etc. - though such a system does not currently exist (it would require communicaton and refutation of keys to authorized playback devices - say 10 simultaneously).
However, such a system must also recognize new rights I may be deemed to have by the courts. If timeshifting, archiving, and media transfer are deemed to not violate copyright, then all existing equipment I have that enforces DRM must be retrofited, at the DRM users' expense, to recognise those rights. Same goes for all other people encumbred by a particular DRM system.
In the past, one would build the device, and then defend that it offers fair use (MPAA v. Sony - Betamax decision). However, today that may be legally impossible (DMCA, and relatively uncrackable DRM). But, on balance, one should be able to petition the court for a preemptive decision on whether a particular use would be fair, and if the existing DRM mechanisms do not support it, they would have to be modified at the DRM users' expense. The idea is that the DRM mechanism is a proxy for the DRM user's rights and so must change as those rights do.
I am not suggesting that this would be an inexpensive undertaking for a DRM user faced with supporting a newly recognized fair use. But, it is a reasonable requirement, in the face of the control they exert.
You could've hired me.