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?"

Comments

it was bound to happen

[timmarhy]

the ipod carrying generation finaly has the wealth to make a difference

Re:it was bound to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it's just extravagant spending outside of their means. Like how I have a graduate degree from Berkeley in cryptography and work 80 hour weeks for a well known corporation in DC yet I can't afford to buy Nike/Adidas shoes for my kid like people on wellfare can?

Re:Finally, but will it do anything?

[MoonFog]

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.

A good thing, too

[treff89]

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.

Re:A good thing, too

[treff89]

In terms of Apple's DRM: Even so, and I'm not trying to argue with you here; however, the fact of the matter is that Apple could have far, far reduced restrictions on its music and still satisfied the record companies. The fact of the matter is that Apple is purposefully using DRM as a tool to force people to buy an iPod to listen to their music downloaded through iTunes (for Joe User) if they want it on the run. The simple fact of the matter is that this is another case in which a provider is using DRM as a "tool" (for want of a better word) to increase _their_ sales rather than just a mere copyright restriction attempting to bring digital technology back to the standards of 10 years ago when copying a CD among friends was nigh on impossible. DRM is a backwards step and should not be accepted in the global (internet) village.

Re:consumers voicing their opinion?

[TheScottishGuy]

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!

D'uh

[t_allardyce]

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.

Cost is the biggest issue

[iainl]

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.

Wow, you mean they want to own what they pay for?

[Gldm]

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.

Re:Finally, but will it do anything?

[Sanity]

This is in Britain where British law applies.

European law applies too, in particuar the European Copyright Directive which apparently is every bit as bad as the DMCA in the US.

Celine

[Netsensei]

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...

Quality was also an issue

[Zog The Undeniable]

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.

Dilemma

[Pecisk]

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.

quit buying music!

[FudRucker]

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...

Re:DRM Alternative

[jayloden]

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

My opinion on Limited Use

[DrugCheese]

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.

Re:Finally, but will it do anything?

[bzipitidoo]

Ultimately it's we the people who say who has the "right" to do what. A company can have the "right" to put on all the protection it wants, but it won't help if we quit buying. People prefer that natural market forces sort the good ideas from the not so good. DRM is a bad idea. DRM doesn't work. Why isn't it dying even faster? Authorities should prefer good refereeing to revising rules. But lobbying from the industry, with funds ultimately provided through the high prices many among us are willing to pay, is what keeps DRM going.

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.