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:it was bound to happen

[mustrum_ridcully]

Mind you Apple are being taken to the European Court because they prevent UK downloaders from using the French and German iTunes sites and getting cheaper downloads.

For those of you who don't know the EUs single market prohibits this, a person from one EU must be able to buy something from another EU state as if they were living there - no discrimination can be made on grounds of nationality - thereby ensuring the free movement of goods.

Re:it was bound to happen

[xtracto]

Halleluya! But I think thats not 100%, I live in UK and before arriving here I thought I would find cheaper CD's than in my country (I am from Mexico), to my surprise, while in MX the CD's (European Metal) where like $15 USD each one, here in UK they are at GBP 15 (darn pund symbol =oP), and in Spain, France and other EU countries they are cheaper (13 Euros)... that really pisses me off!

But, I think that is because Britons do not care about the price of things, when I come from a country where a $1 peso (like $.1 USD) rebate, is always welcomed!,

Darn, I have even seen people leaving .40 GBP (pences) in the chocolate vending machines!! it seems they put the pound and they dont like the change. I make the conversion and think "oh my god, it is $8.0 MXP!!! I can buy a chocolate with that =oD)

Re:it was bound to happen

[Darren Winsper]

"(darn pund symbol =oP)"
Here's a few, try not to spend them all at once:

£££££££

Re:it was bound to happen

[DJProtoss]

The thing is, there is nothing to stop you going to france/spain and getting it for the cheaper price, and so its ok.
Even if you were to go to France, you couldn't use the French iTunes store, as it won't let you without a french registered bank account. Thats whats infringing.

Re:it was bound to happen

[mikael]

That's why the manufacturing companies refer to the UK as "Treasure Island". Because the UK is an island, there is a financial disincentive for people to go into neighbouring countries and buy cheaper products there.

The only time such behaviour is profitable is when the taxes are high enough to offset the cost of transportation; in particular alcohol and tobacco products.

Re:it was bound to happen

[TheoGB]

I'm somewhat amazed you didn't know the UK is one of the most expensive countries in the world. I'd hazard it might be THE most expensive since given the huge wage disparities here.

CDs are expensive, though on line they should be cheaper. Even that's being clamped down on, though.

We do care about the price but when you need chocolate you need it. HOwever, if you want a song off iTunes you will always find a way to get it cheaper ;)

Re:it was bound to happen

[Peeteriz]

Well, that's the point - they cannot 'make sure' that, since they will be prohibited by the courts to do this.

Re:it was bound to happen

[daBass]

I don't think this is a clear cut case. The Apple store in Paris (if there is one, dunno) has different prices to the one in Oxford Street, London.

I can go to Paris, buy it for their price and take it here.

What they could NOT do is say: "but you are from London, so we will charge the London price".

It will be interesting to see how this works with electronic delivery.

Currently, I presume there is a single data center, with just different store fronts for different countries, which can easily be deemed illegal. (after a very, very long legal battle)

But I don't think that the rules can do anything about having a french store, in france, with french prices for the french and a UK one, in the UK, for UK customers only with UK prices.

If that were the case, then all bricks and mortar stores operating internationaly should carry the same prices for the same products everywhere and manufacturers/importers should sell to local shops for the same prices as everywhere else, which clearly, they don't.

Re:it was bound to happen

[Peeteriz]

The problem is in your sentence "for UK customers only".

If Apple has a storefront at .fr, then they are not allowed to deny UK customers to shop there. They wouldn't be required to offer this storefront in english, but there is no way the courts will allow them to deny an customer to shop there just because he is from UK.

That would be the case even if they were dealing with physical goods, but then they could refuse to ship to UK - but here no shipping is required.

Re:it was bound to happen

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Apple are being taken to the European Court because they prevent UK downloaders from using the French and German iTunes sites and getting cheaper downloads.

Yeah, except that to do so would violate the law in each of those countries, or require Apple to raise prices to the highest countries royalty rates. Great deal, everyone pays more. The EU also directed the music licensing organizations of all European countries to agree to licensing across Europe, so far they have completely refused to comply.

a person from one EU must be able to buy something from another EU state as if they were living there - no discrimination can be made on grounds of nationality

So here is the problem. As the law stands in the EU, a license to music in France is not the same thing as a license to music in Britain. Both have different prices and restrictions. If this lawsuit wins against Apple they will have to charge people in France a higher price so that it is the same as the license cost in Britain. Tell me again how this is a win for anyone?

I've seen this same issue brought up here before. You have to remember Apple wants to charge the lowest possible price for music. They just use it as a way of selling ipods, and don't make any money off of it. Your argument makes it sound like Apple execs are sitting around and figuring out which countries they can gouge the most. In truth they just want to sell the music as cheaply as they can without losing money so that people will buy more ipods.

The standardization of licensing across Europe would be great, but there is not really anything Apple can do to make it happen. This lawsuit is completely misdirected.

Re:it was bound to happen

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The EU is a single market; by law, there should be no restriction upon buying goods from different countries that are in the EU.

There is no restriction on buying goods. But this is not a material good it is a license to intellectual property. You can buy a license for a copy of music from France in England, unfortunately it is useless in England since in England the rights to the music are owned by a completely different person. The problem is consumers don't understand copyrights and the fact that copyrights are per country and copyright owners have refused to make the agreements they were ordered to to make this simple for them.

In the long term, prices will settle to an average, because the EU shares a common market.

Wrong! It is not the same product in each country even if it seems the same to consumers. This is because the laws in Europe grant copyrights to different organizations in each country. In each country the rights are owned by a cartel. This lawsuit, if successful, will just allow any cartel to hold all of Europe hostage.

This lawsuit isn't misdirected; the music industry is forcing Apple to illegally create trade restrictions in the EU.

Sue the music licensing organizations, not Apple. Apple is just complying with each country's laws which makes the copyright for a song cost a different price and have different restrictions in each country.

If the EU allows this, then more companies will jump on the bandwagon and the EU's single market will start to fragment.

Then maybe they should enforce the order they already issued to mandate cross country licensing. Suing the people who purchased from the people who are ignoring your edict and causing problems is not going to do any good. It just forces Apple to either not sell in Europe or raise prices. The market will not even it out, since in order to comply with the ruling they need the buy in from every EU member's copyright holders, and some of them are not about to miss a chance to funnel money from wealthier parts of Europe to themselves.

Re:it was bound to happen

[macdaddy357]

The only way to make a difference is to stop buying. Not only are downloads pure vapor you can lose with one false mouse click, but if you can't even use them as you see fit, they are worthless. Even a penny a piece would be too much. You don't get something for nothing, so why buy from people wanting to sell you nothing for something?

Finally, but will it do anything?

[strider44]

Don't the RIAA have a virtual monopoly on music, and so can't they place restrictions at will?

I think that it's good that people are listening, but without competition, somewhere else to go to to get the music that you want, why would the music industry do anything?

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.

Re:Finally, but will it do anything?

[CdBee]

There is a British Phonographic Industry association, but the Recording Industry Association of America has no legal power here.

Re:Finally, but will it do anything?

[FidelCatsro]

To be honest worst comes to worst the UK could do without RIAA , As the UK and well the whole of europe has alot of bands signed to labels outside the RIAA.

Another think though , i would dearly love this to come up in the european court as they have a tendancy to rule in favour of the people , If it hapens that the european court rules that it is unlawfull then it will begin to spread over the member states .

When it has spread to all the member states then the practice will extend beyond the member states to non member states , at which point there is an extremly large import export market which would flow to you guys in the USA , Australlie , Canada , New zeland etc.

When this hapens , people will stop buying the DRM crap localy and pay for the imported stuff that they can do as they please with.

Thus the snowball continues to roll and hopefull that would be the end of DRM in music (hopefully a side-effect would be removing it from software and Films)

Well we can but dream

Re:Finally, but will it do anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

didn't France recently do this?

No. A recent judgement involving consumer watchdog associations said:
- companies have the right to put protections on their CDs
- consumers who experience problems reading these CDs are entitled a refund.
Now, circumventing encryption is still authorised in Europe. The problem would be a DMCA-like bill at the European level (such as EUCD).

Re:Finally, but will it do anything?

[Pofy]

>Now, circumventing encryption is still
>authorised in Europe. The problem would be a
>DMCA-like bill at the European level (such as >EUCD).

As far as I know and have read, the directive only deals with circumvention protection for copright related issues, which would primarilly be protection that prevent copying. Accessing is NOT a right for a copuright hodler, hence protection that simply deals with accessing a work is not covered by the directive. Encryption does not in anyway prevent copying, it is about access, and hence ccould be "circumvented". Of course, some countries have gone further and added in access into their copyright laws, but that is then not due to the directive.

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.

Re:Finally, but will it do anything?

[Yodalf]

Not so with DVDs, though... A very recent judgment by the french appeals court forces the removal of copy protection from a specific DVD for somebody who wanted to copy it for personal use. See: http://www.lapresseaffaires.com/partenaires/nouvel les/reference/index.php?id=8,2017,2019,042005,1006 934.html&ref=reference

Re:Finally, but will it do anything?

[Mendalus]

It's not quite that simple. All directives from the European Union must be incorparated seperately in all the member nations.

I don't know how far the UK has gone in implementing the European Copyright Directive. Norway is in progress. (Though we're not actually members of the EU, we have a trade agreement which obliges us to implement all the directives without having any influence of the making of them. Since we're dependent on that trade agreement, I think we might as well join as full members. But that's quite off topic.)

In Norway it's been quite a debate about this, and it has been widely covered in the media. Especially concerning the consumers right to choose which kind of player media he wants to use to listen to the media he has bought. The law in question is whether or not it should be illegal to crack restrictions of the manufacturer.

I've usually considered the Norwegian consumer as docile, but if the British only recently has taken the new restrictions into account, they are even worse off. I sincerly hope this is not so.

Re:Finally, but will it do anything?

[Pofy]

>Do you have a source for the claim that the
>directive only deals with copyright related
>issues?

This is mostly from the text of the proposed copyright law changes in Sweden. It is a VERY large documnet (the pdf is split into two 250 page documents). Below is a link to a text version. I can post the link to the pdf tomorrow if needed. It is in Swedish of course. Also note that I mostly read the initial proposal from last year, there are some changes in this one. The relevant chaptr would be 11.3 I think, or perhaps all of 11.

http://rixlex.riksdagen.se/htbin/thw/?$%7BBASE%7D= PROPARKIV0405&$%7BTHWIDS%7D=8.49%5D11145200291088& $%7BHTML%7D=PROP_DOK&$%7BTRIPSHOW%7D=format=THW&$% 7BTHWURLSAVE%7D=49%5D11145200291088

I recall from the original proposition were this was discussed and detailed. The reasoning was that the whole directive is about copyright only. Circumvention can only be in regard to copyright related "rights" for the copyright holder. They specifically mentioned region coding as not applying since it had nothing to do with copyright.

Then they raised the question about protection mechanisms that protected both copyright related rights and non copyright related ones. To give such combined protection also protection for circumvention would be to give to much power to the copyright holder. They thus had the option to either make a protection only for copyright related issues and get protection versus circumvention, or to add more and lose the circumvention protection. As I said, I have not read if there is any changes to this in the current proposal. I would say it would be minor changes only.

The EU directive seems to be attached to this text version but from a quick look looks like a mix of swedish and english.Its name is if I am not mistake "2001/29/EG" It is not THAT easy to actually interpret the directive correctly though, hence why I have mostly relied on reading the swedish proposal for its implementation were they argue on how to interpret and apply the directive. After all, it is the actual law of my country that is relevant to me.

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.

Hey Brits!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a "tea party". Throw your music into the Thames!

You know about tea, right??

Re:Hey Brits!!

[salparadyse]

Never, ever make a joke about tea to an Englishman. It's on the same level as flag burning in the US.

Re:Hey Brits!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's just the Rebels, sir... they're here."
"My God, man! Do they want tea?"
"No, I think they're after something a bit more than that, sir. I don't know what it is, but they've brought a flag."
"Damn, that's dash cunning of them."

Re:Hey Brits!!

[NetNifty]

Well put it this way... I'm English and my family of 5 goes through 26 pints of milk a week purely on tea.

Re:Hey Brits!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Useless fact: The Irish drink more tea per person than the British (or anyone else, for that matter).

Re:Hey Brits!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, it's grim up north, or should that be ooh aar you bugger? I'll be throwing mine in the Grand Union canal. Have you seen the rain today? Still, mustn't grumble.

Re:Hey Brits!!

[surprise_audit]

Never, ever make a joke about tea to an Englishman. It's on the same level as flag burning in the US.

It's worse than that - the Romans attempted to invade Britain several times, and were only successful when they hit on the idea of landing on a Friday at 4pm, during teatime. The Romans had plenty of time to establish fortifications on the shore before the British warriors returned on the following Monday.

Re:Hey Brits!!

[lskovlund]

Did you read the conclusion of that page you refer to?

In moderation, tannins are not concentrated enough to interfere with digestion. We'd say after 5000 to 8000 years of tea drinking, you'd have to assume that tannins can't be all that bad.

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

[CountBrass]

. Don't let the facts get in the way of bashing Apple or anything will you?

The various record companies own the rights to the music: they made it a condition of allowing Apple to sell it online that it had to be DRM'd. Apple had a simple choice: DRM or no music.

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:A good thing, too

[Angostura]

You're conflating two unrelated points there.

1. "the fact of the matter is that Apple could have far, far reduced restrictions on its music and still satisfied the record companies."

Says you... if you have evidence, I'd like to see it.

2. "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."

True-ish, however the use of AAC isn't really a DRM issue, it's simply a case of a company selling music in a format that can only be processed by their own music players.

Re:A good thing, too

[m50d]

Ooh, that makes it ok then. If apple's selling it, it can't possibly be a bad product for customers. After all, they would never sell a bad product rather than no product in order to turn a profit, would they? Not apple, no, they're always thinking of the customer above all else.

Re:A good thing, too

[ajs318]

You get a surprising number of 'fair-use' privileges

Fair Use is a right, not a privilege. Copyright is a privilege; the "right" bit is just Doublespeak.

Re:A good thing, too

[kyojin the clown]

1) license fairplay to other manufacturers of portable devices. didn't they just sue real for this? if they didnt want to lock you into an iPod, this would be the way around it.

Re:A good thing, too

[Doctor_Jest]

I for one would rather Apple have more leverage in this with regard to their negotiations with the tyrannical RIAA. If they did, you'd see considerably less restriction on the music, if any at all. Remember, Apple isn't the one pushing the DRM, the RIAA is. Apple couldn't care less if the music got shared by some people. Attractive pricing, a good model (iTunes/iPod fit like a glove), and an ever-growing catalog of music (including independent and niche artists) are what is driving Apple's success. The DRM is a lead weight that keeps it from becoming even more huge, thanks to the RIAA.

In the case of the Apple DRM, It's at least easy, if not slightly convenient, to remove the DRM if you had to, but that's really not the point I suppose. This whole "copy protected" music idea has done nothing that it was intended to do, except inconvenience those of us who don't use P2P to get our music.

I am glad I can put the tunes on my iPod and iPod Shuffle, and I am glad I can burn copies for my archive and my road mixes. If the store were to close tomorrow, I have an advantage over other online music purchasers.... I get to keep my music. They don't. THANKS, RIAA! :)

I can't understand how anyone would allow themselves to be subjected to MUSIC RENTAL. It's got to be the DUMBEST idea since Divx. (the dvd "rental" model.)

As for crippled CD's, I've gotten two so far. Both of them from record labels that I would consider non-mainstream. I won't buy any more of their records. Period. If they consider that to be a "loss to piracy", they can get bent. It's a loss because my stereo (my macintosh) won't play the music. Sell me a broken product, and you won't have me as a customer very long. I don't give second chances.

Re:A good thing, too

[Zixia]

the use of AAC isn't really a DRM issue, it's simply a case of a company selling music in a format that can only be processed by their own music players.

It can be processed by other music players, it's just that it isn't. The codec can be licenced and used just as it can for MP3.

DRM not helping

[antonpiatek]

I rarely download music, most of my friends buy CD's so they can do what they like with the music.

Some of my friends do download, but i can't think of any that download any drm'd music. They stick to sites such as audiolunchbox.com and alloffmp3.com and get drm-free mp3 files.

The only thing that bothers me is that if i want to listen to my flatmates cd, i will want to put it on my ipod for a while. He uses media player to rip his music, so it wont play on my ipod.

If music companies sat down and thought about what they are doing, they would realise that they are competing against the mp3 player market, because if they dont sell something that plays on most mp3 players, then people wont buy it!

Re:DRM not helping

[zakezuke]

The only thing that bothers me is that if i want to listen to my flatmates cd, i will want to put it on my ipod for a while. He uses media player to rip his music, so it wont play on my ipod.

Then don't buy an ipod. I don't have an ipod, but I thought ipod did .mp3, or unless your saying your flatmate rips music to .wma format, in which case you should convince them to rip in .mp3 and avoid all that DRM crap and have the benefit of being able to burn discs that play in most DVD players. Parodon my ipod ignorance on this issue.

I personally am holding out for a portable music player that reads .mp3 on DVD media. It's what my DVD player understands, it's what my PC understands, and the media is a heck of a lot cheaper than flash memory solutions.

If music companies sat down and thought about what they are doing, they would realise that they are competing against the mp3 player market, because if they dont sell something that plays on most mp3 players, then people wont buy it!

That's just it. They are not interested in selling you what you want, only what they want to sell. Vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD, SACD/DVD-A, Microsoft audio CD(whatever that's called), it's in the industry's best interest to create short term standards so you buy the same thing over and over again.

Ownership

[smokeslikeapoet]

While I understand I don't own a copyright. I do think that if I buy a cd/dvd/download that I should have the right to copy/play/replay the media for my own personal use. Unless of course I agreed in advance that my use would be limited (video rental, pay-per-view). If I want to make a copy of my cd/dvd/download and convert it to any format that I deem necessary to enjoy the content then that is my right! I am claiming it as my right. It doesn't really matter at all what any law says. You can take my ipod out of my cold dead hands because I bought the freaking CDs!!!

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.

Re:D'uh

[jbolden]

After a while people grow up and get jobs and disposable money ... and buy records at about 10% of the rate they used to. The pop music market is dominated by people with not much money but almost all of it being disposable income. Its much harder to get 25+s to buy music at all.

Great!!!

[kataflok]

It's the beginnings of a massive world wide revolt where everyone starts downloading their music from bittorrent.......


Oh wait....

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.

This is good news

[EvilNutSack]

Once the sheeple slowly realise they are getting the shaft and bleat about it.

I was locked into a technology once...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanna buy an 8-track tape?

I got tons of 'em

Re:consumers voicing their opinion?

[ColdGrits]

That's true.

We're British; we like to moan about things; that's what we do.

Hell, we've been moaning about the weather here for centuries but nobody does anything about it, what makes you think this will be any different?

We find something to moan about, we complain that "somebody" should Do Something about it, and then we get on with our lives.
We never actually intend for Something to be Done - we'd lose something to moan about!

DRM Alternative

[Luke Psywalker]

There is a DRM alternative in the way of an inaudible signature key inside a waveform. You can use the files as you see fit, however if they are found on a P2P network you will get busted because they will have your details from when you purchased the track. You can even burn the audio file, rip it, re-encode it and the signature will still be there.

Re:DRM Alternative

[Ckwop]

This won't work. Say each download has a different inaudible signature key inside the waveform. All I have to do is download it twice and compare the two files. I then set an bits to zero that are different in the two files.

There's a very high chance that i've totally destroyed the signature key by doing this.

Simon.

Re:DRM Alternative

[@madeus]

If (as it seems to me the original poster was suggesting) you take two files that are the same (from different sources, e.g. one from you, one from someone else), and diff them then you will be able to remove the wartermarking that uniquely identifies you as the owner.

You could even build the ability to have this wartermarking removed automatically by P2P software (even without having to transfer the entire file to a given user at any point, e.g. just by comparing info of various random segments of the file), if you were that way inclined.

If someone did use the same identifier for multiple users, then they can't trace it down to a specific user, so even if they are left in, those bits are effectively worthless.

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

Re:DRM Alternative

[ajs318]

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.

Re:consumers voicing their opinion?

[Dr.Opveter]

Well, for some consumers anyway. I stopped buying audio CD's a number of years ago, trying to show what i thought about the price/quality of CD's.
I haven't tried to purchase any music online yet but i will not buy any less than CD quality DRM files at high prices.
I mean if i can buy a full album cd package for a couple of bucks more than the DRM download version i would not even consider it a worthwile effort. It works for single tracks, but for people who want the whole album it doesn't make sense.

Who would have thought

[Groo Wanderer]

Once again, the mainstream media catches up to my rants. Sigh.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16999
For each of the people pissed off by DRM, they will warn off dozens of others, and the music industry will soon find themselves in a world of hurt. Oh wait, they are already there.

When you piss off your customers with draconian measures designed to suck money out of their wallets at your whim, they stop buying. Duh. The correct answer to this dillema is not to turn the knob up to 11, but to turn it down, or better yet off. The music industry can't seem to grasp this concept.

Maybe it is me, am I missing something? Has the whole strategy of 'make them hate us more than the Nazis' ever lead to greater profits?

-Charlie

Cory Doctorow was right

[Kartoch]

Remember me the speech of Cory Doctorow given to Microsoft's Research Group.:

Here's what I'm here to convince you of:
1. That DRM systems don't work
2. That DRM systems are bad for society
3. That DRM systems are bad for business
4. That DRM systems are bad for artists
5. That DRM is a bad business-move for MSFT

Bleep.com

[oldManSquad]

There is only one legal music site that gets it right that im aware of, and that's Bleep. Download site of the wonderful warp label, home of Aphex and Autechre among others.

They have no DRM controls and have always had top quality mp3s. They are now starting to implement FLAC as well. If you like the type of music they provide, indie electronica / rock / hip hop etc, then I thoroughly recommend them.

Re:Bleep.com

[flokemon]

Another record label's website gets it right:

Chemikal Underground's online store

MP3, FLAC and OGG ;) and you can also listen to tracks first.

Re:Bleep.com

[iainl]

To be fair, while they charge more for individual tracks (which is itself unsurprising when they started as just for Warp Records, where you'll normally only get two tracks on your £4 12" single anyway), whole albums are £6.99 - less than iTunes.

Re:Bleep.com

[oldManSquad]

Also I forgot to add about Bleep is that 50% goes direct to the artist, so yes while they might be a tad expensive, the artists benefit more.

Nyeah, Told You So

[turgid]

Most of us here could see this happening. I really despair at mass media, the general public and big companies. No one listens.

So people are annoyed that they can't transfer the files they've paid for, the sound quality isn't that good and sometimes they've paid for something that didn't download properly so they paid to download it again?

More fool them: the consumers and the companies.

I'll stick to buying CDs (but not the Copy Protected ones) by bands I like and going to live shows.

The fundamental problem here is that the music industry wants to get rich off of simplistic, mass-produced music, i.e. the stuff that appeals to young kids with no money.

If they want a healthy, sustainable and profitable business they need to downsize and focus on producing a quality product.

Re:Nyeah, Told You So

[GileadGreene]

I really despair at mass media, the general public and big companies. No one listens.

If you only rant and whine on slashdot, how are they supposed to hear you?

Major Rant

[Anonymous Coward]

I posted this in my blog a hour or so ago, it goes off topic toward the end.

I won't be buying a significant amount of new music anytime soon. $15 for a CD is simply too much, and with high-speed Internet access there's no need to do so. Why should I pay for a $15 CD if I only want a song or two off it? There was (is?) a store that offered custom-burned CDs, but that was likely stopped by the music industry.

The music industry simply won't change in response to Internet piracy. They still act as it's 1990 and there is no alternate way to get music.

The simplest way to fight piracy is to lower the prices on downloadable music, to say 25 cents per song. This would replace the music industy's model of high priced / low sales with a low priced / high sales model. This would cause most of the downloaders of free music to switch to online stores, but it won't move everyone over.

The second step, which is required to get the advanced users into it, would be to stop using "Digital Restrictions Management." Fortunately, at such a low price per song, the volume would cover any loses to piracy while allowing any song to work with any device. I can't imagine the same numbers of these advanced users sharing music when it would be easier to download them at the low price of 25 cents.

Download sites should also increase the bitrate (quality) of the legal tracks online. Offering lossy formats doesn't provide a superior product. When I have the choice of two files online, I download the higher-quality one.

The last step is to offer "bootlegs" and "unreleased" tracks, which is an issue seldom addressed. There's a great version of Led Zeppelin's "No Quarter" that runs more than 10 minutes, but due to a very minor analog distortion that I didn't notice until a trained musician pointed it out to me, is not available for purchase anywhere. I'm a Zep fan and I would gladly pay for a CD of live and unreleased Zeppelin songs even if they weren't perfect in the ears of Jimmy Page. I imagine there's countless other examples of songs that aren't available any other way than "illegal" downloading.

The copyright system needs to be reformed, since copyright is:

" To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" - US Constitution (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/a rticle01/)

I can't say music is a "useful art", nor is it a science. Copyright isn't for securing a permanant income stream for the author and his descentdants and corporations. (paraphrased from another /. poster)

For example, Disney's Steamboat Willy (a percursor to Mickey Mouse) is from the 1920s, and will never be "publick domain" in my lifetime thanks to the amazing power of corporations in our government. If one was a lawmaker and wanted to reform these laws, I'm sure ABC's (owned by Disney) stations and reports would take a bit more of a negative view of that lawmaker.

The movie industry is also worried about piracy, and since many movie studios are in corporations that also own music labels, they're not taking this issue lightly. It shouldn't be as big of an issue, as not nearly as many people expect to download free movies online.

The movie/tv industry needs to move now to take advantage of the Internet rather than viewing it as inherently evil. Don't wait until the masses discover downloading movies!

A full movie usually fits on a single DVD, and is between 2-4GB. If a site offered movies for 10 a piece I'd download some of them, provided there is no DRM involved.

Let's take any TV show, say "South Park" for example which is already out on DVD. There's countless ways to get it illegally online, which I prefer to do rather than watch it on TV and it's constant commercial interuptions.

There's no reason why a movie or show can't be released online after it's original primary airing. This woul

Re:Major Rant

[anubi]

According to the article:

"The labels are trying to maintain prices comparable to the physical world."

While everyone here is noting

The Public is trying to maintain interoperability comparable to the physical world.

All this DRM crap is result of MAN's law, not PHYSICAL law.

It can evaporate just as fast as Grey Davis's California Governorship.

For now, we need Government and the music industry to swing this pendulum HARD, so they will frustrate many, many, many people. Get 'em all riled up and get them off their asses.

Let Government bring themselves into the limelight - let them be like the neighbor which goes amok and irritates an entire neighborhood - upon which time all thats on everybody's mind is how to get those "bad people" out of the neighborhood. When people meet and swap stories commiserating bad politics, not sports, we are gonna see some change - big change - happen fast, as nothing the politician's head can hock out will be listened to, just as nothing Grey Davis' head could hock up would get people to ignore the energy crises he was instigating in California.

Every lawsuit filed against children over listening to a song becomes noticed - with the public fully aware that a politician's signature put that law in place.

Get the public riled enough, and DRM will go the way of the saucy deals Grey Davis cut with the bigwigs out here in California. If the politician in office won't fix the law, by golly, throw out the bastid and put someone else in there who will.

Yeh, heads will be bleating all over the place, just as heads are bleating now. Politicians will be faced with the choice of making the labels happy - but to do so will cost them their job, retirement, and any legal influence they have to make any sort of law.

For now, let 'em push the pendulum far out, so it will swing back,... HARD!!!!

Let's let everyone get burned really good so they have a good taste of what it feels like to lose what they thought were basic freedoms and rights.

You never miss the water 'till the well runs dry - but if the well ever does indeed run dry and you get really thirsty, one now has incentive to pay attention to the well and fiercely protect it.

I, for one, will rest much peacefully when the voices of the DRM-crowd carry just about as much weight as the head of Grey Davis hocking up words. Lots of blah but stripped of its administrative power by an irritated and angry populace.

Sadly...

[dos_dude]

... a frustrated consumer doesn't automagically turn into a consumer that is aware of his/her own market power.

If that were the case, consumers would be able to program their VCRs (because only usable VCRs would be sold), Windows would be a lot safer, spyware would be non-existant, etc, etc.

And even if consumers were aware of their market power, they'd need a vendor that would provide what they want.

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...

Re:Celine

[geminidomino]

Well, that's what you get for listening to Celene Dion!

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.

Re:Quality was also an issue

[l3v1]

The others called bullshit, but I stand on your side. 128k is just fine for your everyday crap one just wants to listen to quickly but I'd never do that to my favourite stuff, like classic music, my Diana Krall albums, and I could just go on for hours. These I have 92-320k vbr encoded and I'd never settle for less. For me a store selling songs below 256k mp3 quality (I state explicitely again, 128k mp3 quality, since there are other formats which can settle with less) is definitely the wrong place to spend my money at. Anyway, in the last few months I've spent more on music CDs than in the last 2 years before. Now come RIAA with your decreasing sales figures.

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.

Re:Dilemma

[EzInKy]

You don't have rights to listen/copy/play in your cd unless I give you such rights.

Copyright covers copying, not listening or playing.

Cory Doctorow (Speaking to MSFT about DRM)

[putko]

Cory Doctorow (Speaking to MSFT about DRM)

... I speak from experience. Because I buy a new Powerbook every ten months, and because I always order the new models the day they're announced, I get a lot of lemons from Apple. That means that I hit Apple's three-iTunes-authorized-computers limit pretty early on and found myself unable to play the hundreds of dollars' worth of iTunes songs I'd bought because one of my authorized machines was a lemon that Apple had broken up for parts, one was in the shop getting fixed by Apple, and one was my mom's computer, 3,000 miles away in Toronto.

If I had been a less good customer for Apple's hardware, I would have been fine. If I had been a less enthusiastic evangelist for Apple's products -- if I hadn't shown my mom how iTunes Music Store worked -- I would have been fine. If I hadn't bought so much iTunes music that burning it to CD and re-ripping it and re-keying all my metadata was too daunting a task to consider, I would have been fine.

As it was Apple rewarded my trust, evangelism and out-of-control spending by treating me like a crook and locking me out of my own music, at a time when my Powerbook was in the shop -- i.e., at a time when I was hardly disposed to feel charitable to Apple.

I'm an edge case here, but I'm a *leading edge* case. If Apple succeeds in its business plans, it will only be a matter of time until even average customers have upgraded enough hardware and bought enough music to end up where I am.

Re:Cory Doctorow (Speaking to MSFT about DRM)

[iainl]

Cory Doctorow Doesn't RTFM.

My iPod manual explicitly stated that I want to deregister any old machine that I won't be using when I move to the new one. You can only use protected AACs on 5 machines, but that's 5 machines at any time. There's a specific iTunes menu option to deregister the machine so your files will work on the new one.

Quelle suprise...

[TractorBarry]

Well I live in England and am technically British (another story) and I for one will have nothing whatsoever to do with digital restrictions management.

If it's DRM crippled I'm simply not buying it. If it's region code crippled I'm not buying it. If I can't use it the way I want to I'm not interested. Ner nerny ner ner.

Sadly however most people couldn't care less, don't actually understand the issues, and will just buy whatever crap's dangled in front of their noses. "ooh look at it, it's so SHINY". Then I get to say "told you so" and laugh at them whilst they curse loudly and smash their shiny new toys to bits after it's lost their entire music/photo collection :)

Ho hum c'est la vie.

DRM Sucks!!!

[lordperditor]

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.

The Root of the Problem

[Fact Hunt]

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.

Licencing is GOOD

[Crass Spektakel]

Licensing is good as long as it is 90% or more cheaper than buying! Would you lifetime-licence your favourite CD for 1,5 instead of buying it for 15? Well, I would. Would you pay 0,5 Cent for listening once to your favourite CD instead of buying it for 15? Well, I would.

Until then... well, not for me, kids. I am not stupid enough to licence a CD for 30 when I can get the original for 15. I won't pay per listen a whooping 15 when I can get the Original for 15.

Replacing media

[CyrusSukhia]

So now that content is licensed the content, who do i contact to have my media replaced when it gets ruined? Certainly I shouldn't have to pay the full retail price for a new CD since I already have the license...

Re:Notice on the comments page

[godless dave]

Unless you want to use a player other than an iPod, in which case it doesn't work at all.

This comment sums it up nicely:

The whole concept is ridiculous. Would you really buy a CD that you could only play on one brand of CD player? That you couldn't play in the car as well as at home and in your CD Walkman? A CD that has sound quality comparable to an old cassette tape at best? No, no, no! Mark Serlin, London UK

No

[AC5398]

*** 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.

AllofMP3: not if you're 80 or older

[rvw]

I just tried to register with allofmp3.com. Because I just wanted to see what they offer, I used a fake name. Then I had to enter my age. I entered 100. I was quite surprised to see that it didn't work: "more correctly input your age", was the message I got.

I tried 90, then 80, and got accepted at 70. At first I thought it was really smart russian hacking (being able to correct me lying about my age), but as they only got to just within the 100% error margin, it couldn't be thát smart.

Although I expect not many people will be excluded by this marketing technique, I'm surprised they even check for this.

NonAcceptance = Jail

[Blitzenn]

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.

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...

We are not consumers. We're customers.

[dsanfte]

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?

Fool me once, shame on you...

[sdo1]

... fool me twice, shame on me.

I bought and downloaded some .wmv baseball game footage from MLB.com (last year's playoff games). They even advertised that I could "burn it to CD!". This is the first time I've bought anything like that, so I'm figuring "Great! I'll be able to make a VCD of it.". Wrong. The things are so heavily DRM'd that even the fast-forward buttons are disabled.

Oh, and yes, I can burn the files to CD... as data. But I can't do a damn thing with them. I still need to be at my internet enabled PC so it can check for authorization any time I want to watch them.

I figured I'd give iTunes a try having read that their DRM isn't nearly as draconian. Well, it's basically the same issues though not to the same extent. And the sound quality sucks.

Fooled me twice... shame on me.

I hope the media companies hear this loud and clear... I will GLADLY buy high-quality un-DRM'd content. Let me repeat that... GLADLY. That means lossless compression for audio and DVD quality for video. They need to figure out their distribution model. I find it hard to believe that manufacturing discs and paying for shipping and retail overhead is a better cost model than allowing download. But for now, I will continue to buy CDs and DVDs because I can then rip the content and have the high-quality un-DRM'd files that I'm looking for. OR, they could increase their profit margin by allowing the same thing as a data transfer.

-S

Tell me about it...

[turgid]

Darn, I have even seen people leaving .40 GBP (pences) in the chocolate vending machines!! it seems they put the pound and they dont like the change. I make the conversion and think "oh my god, it is $8.0 MXP!!! I can buy a chocolate with that =oD)

There's a lot of snobbery here in the UK (not just England). If people drop their change on the ground, they often won't pick it up for fear of appearing cheap.

People here often go out of their way to buy the most expensive stuff they can because they think it must be better or to show everyone else just how rich and discerning they are.

Like you, I've often had many free snacks from vending machines because people have walked off and left their change. I've also almost managed to fund a night out from picking up the odd pund here and there off the floor...

I've had many useful computer parts from the local rubbish dump.

I'm not a miserable, stingy Scottish git for nothing :-)

Re:Utter Bull-dada

[elrous0]

Romans were about 1600 year too early (pre British Empire & the East India Company) for that.

Is there a mod for "utter lack of a sense of humor"?

-Eric

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.

"Inaudible" watermarks

[tepples]

you might get rid of the watermark but you will make so much nasty "twinkle" in the resulting mp3 that nobody will care you are sharing it.

And who's to say that the watermarking process itself won't create a nasty "twinkle" in golden ears?

People need to wake up

[hyc]

As I wrote in my journal http://yro.slashdot.org/~hyc/journal/85312

the real point here is that music has to belong to individual people, not big corporations. The RIAA isn't doing anybody any favors; most of the new artists that get signed by labels get screwed by contract terms that whittle all their sales earnings down to less than 1/100th of a percent of the gross, while the record companies take the rest. The only way to fix this situation is for artists to remain independent and market/distribute their music on their own. Anybody can set up a web site and put up copies of their music for sale/download. With the Internet today, you don't need the RIAA.

Re:Obscure music and ridiculous prices

[jratcliffe]

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.

The case of the disappearing music

[yeremein]

I'm always surprised that articles about DRM seldom if ever mention the fact that all DRM'd content is in effect printed on disappearing ink.

If you remember to back up your licenses (provided your DRM lets you do that in the first place), you can take your music and ebooks with you to your new computer. But you can't do that indefinitely. Microsoft, for example, only lets you do it twice. After that, all your paid-for content is simply gone.

I wrote about this in some detail on my blog last week.

Re:Utter Bull-dada

[mdielmann]

No, but it's implied when you mention the British Empire.

Re:Obscure music and ridiculous prices

[krouic]

In a free market, a comptetitor would be able to offer a single track, rather than the complete CD, at a more suitable price for me.

However, the copyright laws grant the entertainment industry a (almost) permanent monopoly on their product.

Hence the "core terms of a free market" do not apply here.

My wife noticed this a while ago.

[edunbar93]

Some time ago, I bought my wife a Sony Network Walkman(TM). It was exactly what she wanted, a portable MP3 player that could hold all her CDs, and it can even be used as a network hard drive to back up all the photos and artwork she creates on the computer.

About a month later she joined one of the music sites available in Canada. Try as she might, she couldn't copy the songs she downloaded onto her mp3 player and get them to play, even after talking to the site's tech support. She closed her account and tried to get her money back.

Then she said "Fuck that then. I'm going to steal the music instead. At least I know it will work."
(Of course, stealing the music in Canada is legal thanks to our current tax on such things as MP3 players and blank CDs and DVDs)

Should have been called "copyprivilege"

[tepples]

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.