Slashdot Mirror
Britons Frustrated by DRM
thesp writes "The BBC is reporting that UK music lovers are 'frustrated' with DRM restrictions and pricing of online music purchases. The confusion over file formats and player compatibility are being compounded with the desire to 'own' rather than 'license' an album or track, leading to widespread concern. This debate has recently been the province only of the technologists and the media companies, with the consumer being regarded as unaware and unwitting. Is this a sign that this picture is changing, with consumers begining to realise and leverage their own market power?"
the ipod carrying generation finaly has the wealth to make a difference
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
This is in Britain where British law applies. If the UK decides that it is legal for citizens to circumvent these measures, or find them outright illegal (didn't France recently do this?) there is NOTHING RIAA can do about it, monopoly or not. They will do what they are told or face the consequences.
Thank god consumers are "rejecting" DRM. It can only be a bad thing for manufacturers [such as Apple] (no flame intent) to have control over music files. What the people want is to be able to download a file and to use it like a file, not to download a restricted piece of music, which is only playable by specific players (hard- and software), only allowed on "x" computers, and unable to be shared around to friends. That is against the general undertone of "freedom" on the Internet and this non-acceptance by users can only be a good thing.
well actually what'll probably happen is the same thing as with everything else we brits have issues with, there'll be some whining and eventually the nation will roll over and accept it, same way we do with everythign else, seriously we're pretty much the most apathetic people ever!
I think file sharing would die down on its own if the industry stopped pissing about. Give people what they want at the price they want - thats how a market works. I'd say the most likely people to download music of kazaa etc are school kids and university students - neither group has any money and whatever new 'laws' or solutions the industry comes up with people of these ages are going to share music even if they have to go back to swapping and burning CD's with their friends. After a while people grow up and get jobs and disposable money, the music industry has to realise that theres a price range people want to pay and they can either take internet distribution or leave it. The only 'format' thats going to last out is un-DRM'd or a long-time cracked format (DVD for example) lets be honest with ourselves, the format of choice is mp3 and sooner or later mp3s will be sold cheaply online by all labels and they will still rake in the cash.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I see a lot of the comments echo my own worries with these online music stores; they're just too bloody expensive.
Partly it's that we're being forced to pay much higher download costs than the US or Europe pay for tracks, but it's also that with real CDs we can import. If you want a whole album, you can order it from most online stores (or sometimes even buy in your local supermarket) for around £9. When it costs at least £8 to buy the tracks from iTunes, and usually around £14 from the WMA sites, you're paying a hell of a lot for music in lower quality and covered in DRM that stops you using it on some devices.
In theory, at least, BMG and Sony are trying to force you to pay the high costs by ruining the CD versions with stuff that is meant to kill your PC. But I've got a bunch of these discs (it's hard not to when ordering discs online and so not seeing in advance if it will have "protection"), and not one of them has caused iTunes to bat an eyelid.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
What a novel concept. Those out there saying "well they should have read the fine print" don't seem to get it. It's not that they expected one thing and got another, it's that even people who know what the deal is don't have a legal option to OWN unrestricted files. It's not presented, at any price. That's where the real problem is.
I figured once DRM got widespread enough to start causing problems with mainstream devices the average Joe (or whatever the name in the UK is) would start taking notice. I've been hearing "But WHY can't I tape my DVD like I do my other tapes?" for awhile now, so I figured it was only a matter of time. The broadcast flag will likely have the same effect. A couple months of nothing major and then suddenly rising complaints of not being able to do the things that were always just fine.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
Once the sheeple slowly realise they are getting the shaft and bleat about it.
--
[This is]...compounded with the desire to 'own' rather than 'license' an album or track, leading to widespread concern.
Gee..wouldn't it be Great if this same desire spread to the software market? So you could move software around different systems and actually own it, instead of just "licensing" it via an evil click-thru. Too bad it'll never happen.
Anyone remembers Celine Dion's album wrecking havoc amongst iMacs?
Put one of hers into an iMac and you could kiss your machine goodbye.
I find that the most excellent example of how DRM is bad for the industry ánd the consumer.
I, for one, still lament the day this monsterous entity winded up in my disc drive. I should have returned it to Sony strapped to several kilo's of semtex...
The original study also found that people aren't satisfied with 128kbps files. I'm not really an audiophile, but I can tell the difference myself if I convert and burn a 128kbps mp3 onto CD. On the other hand, 256kbps is indistinguishable for most people, and that's what I rip at.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Copyright owners don't want to give user rights to 'own' the song.
Listeners don't want to 'rent' song, they want to 'own' it.
I guess it will be all the time.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
I feel that if I have an album on vinyl I have every right to record it onto a cassete, from there I have every to burn it onto a CD, and from there I have every right to put it on my MP3 player, or any combination of the above. I purchased the right to listen to that particular configuration of sound waves going into my ears, what machine or media delivers those sound waves is irrelevant and I certainly shouldn't have to repay everytime they bring out a new format or means of delivering it. I download DRM coded tracks when that is the only way to get a track I want but the first thing I do is convert them to unprotected MP3's.
I think that the root of the problem is that given the opportunity most people (including those who consider themselves law abiding) will copy music or video illegally if they can get away with it. Therefore the music companies try to combat this with whatever means they can devise. I can remember as a kid taping from "Top of the Pops" with a cassette recorder stood in front of the TV - the technology has changed but not the principle. This occurs partly because, especially in the UK, DVDs and CDs are way overpriced. Another reason is that a lot of music is disposable: i.e. you listen to it a couple of times and then are fed up with it.
Only 10 types of people understand binary: those who do and those who don't.
The Music industry have a three-phase business plan, consisting of:
1. DRM
2. ???
3. Profit!
*** Is this a sign that this picture is changing, with consumers begining to realise and leverage their own market power? ***
No, this is a sign that consumers are finding out what the money-whoring corporates have been up to. Namely, enacting unreasonable limitations on the use of music and movie products, that don't preclude the use of programs to enforce those limitations. Programs that in other contexts are considered trojans and viruses.
I'll believe that consumers will start to realize and leverage their own market power when they lean on the politicians to the point when the policos discuss the enactment of laws that make the use of such programs illegal. Given most governments have, or are working towards, enacting laws that promote and protect DRM, this is a long way off.
I don't see how the Brits are going to make a smidgen of difference. Nonacceptance of the system was broadly challenged in the US and look where it go it's citizens, new laws that protect the companies and place the public in jail or at least saddle them with hefty fines. The Brits are on the backside of the curve here and probably have little choice but to bend over and take it, just like the Americans had to.
Sorry no vaseline for you, we used it all up on ourselves.
i quit buying music as soon as the RIAA started sueing music downloaders, i have not spent so much as a penny on any music since then, vote with your wallet...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Something is terribly wrong when we've let ourselves be renamed into what amounts to a giant mouth sucking in 'product'. It's dehumanizing. We are no longer people; we're an economic equation.
Why have we let ourselves be redefined in this way?
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
You make a good point, however:
With the current DRM system, the technically minded among us find ways around it, while other people put up with it. All you're really pointing out is that marking each track with an id tag has the same issues as DRMed tracks.
The positive side to a unique id inside the track is that it allows someone like me, who honestly just wants their music and isn't interested in putting in on P2P network, to download it and use it without being restricted in how I use it. I have no problem with being accountable for it, I just don't like being told where I can play it and with what software, etc.
While some people will break the unique ids, and create software that does it for you, etc - those same people are cracking DRMed tracks anyway, so the manufacturers wouldn't lose or gain any more than they do with DRM, but the consumer would gain a lot of freedom to use their purchased tracks. I would definitely support this as an alternative to crippled music tracks (which are the reason I don't download any music from anyone).
The negative side (from the RIAA standpoint) of the unique id tag is that it turns the protection from active protection where the companies prevent it from being released or copied to passive protection where they have to chase you down after the track is released. Again, however, they're running into the same problems with the current system.
Overall, I find this a log less objectionable than DRM tracks, and I'd actually be in favor of something like this.
-Jay
No, because I know that what they are talking about in the second link {the first didn't work} is impossible. Digital watermarking can be removed, and to do so is not difficult once you understand the file format being used. This is not a limitation of present technology, but a limitation of the universe. I suggest you learn some mathematics before you go spouting other people's fantasies as truth. Oh, and log in.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I've been under the impression the whole time that the DRM and every other anti fair use law is aiming at one thing. Locking down the music to a point to where they can charge you for each time you play it.
If it's not stopped hard in it's tracks, one day you'll go out and buy a CD, and after so many times listening to it it'll stop playing. Reading the fine print you really only licensed the music to play it 50 times. If you would like to listen to it some more, pay some more.
*DrugCheese rants*
If you only rant and whine on slashdot, how are they supposed to hear you?
Bottom line of your argument:
1. the product you want is available for purchase
2. the price is more than you're willing to pay
Therefore: You're going to get it illegally.
That violates the core terms of a free market, the ability of either party to decline to engage in a transaction. If you think the price is too high, you're free not to buy. You're not free to unilaterally change the terms of the contract and set whatever price you deem reasonable, without the consent of the other party.
When presented with contract terms, you have the right to:
a) accept
b) offer a counterproposal
c) walk away
There is no "(d) grab it and run" option.
So glad to see a ground swell of unhappiness with the lousy deals the music industry is offering. P2P has reduced distribution costs to nearly nothing. So the industry gets more, artists get more, and what do we get? Nothing! We get pushed a line of garbage about how it's such a privilege to download music legally, be allowed to choose 1/15 of the music at only 1/15th of the price (let's see.. basic math: 1/15 divided by 1/15 equals... same price), and that because capitalism is good, and DRM is vital to the industry's ability to participate in capitalism, we should gladly embrace DRM. Remember, if you download music for free, you download communism! Except that DRM does not work. DRM will never work. I am offended by the insult to our intelligence, the constant pushing of stupid DRM tricks, the waste of money on DRM and on lobbying efforts against our interests, and the bad deals. How much less could music cost if the money wasted was instead passed back to the consumers?
We'd be better served if we'd donate some of our collections to public libraries. I do find it soothing to imagine the outrage of those greedy fools whenever I borrow a CD from the library, and, well, you know. (Bless the Patriot Act for making libraries want to destroy all records of who checked out what.) Enjoying music would be far more efficiently done with P2P of course, but in the meantime, bricks and mortar libraries can serve. I would love to see more performances of out of copyright works in Project Gutenberg.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
When I own something - in this case copyright on certain work of art - my song - I have all rights with me. I can't take away something you don't have.
"All rights"? Try "all privileges". I don't know about the basic justification for copyright in the United Kingdom, but at least the Constitution of the United States treats copyright as a privilege, not a basic human right on par with freedom of speech. The Constitution authorizes Congress to grant copyrights (up to the limit of a constitutional protection of freedom of the press which mandates some level of exemption for fair dealing), and Congress can take them away just as easily.
There IS a reason why independent movies/music are picking up the pieces these days.
On the other hand, independents have to worry more about lawsuits alleging subconscious infringements because they usually don't have the money to pay a forensic musicologist to certify each work as original enough for publication.