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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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!!

[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.

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

[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.

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!

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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.