Slashdot Mirror
Libraries Use DRM to Expire Audiobooks
Valleye writes "CNN is reporting that some US libraries are using Microsoft Media DRM to automatically 'return' audiobooks checked out of their catalog. A patron with a valid library card visits a library Web site to borrow a title for, say, three weeks. When the audiobook is due, the patron must renew it or find it automatically "returned" in a virtual sense: The file still sits on the patron's computer, but encryption makes it unplayable beyond the borrowing period."
What about linux compatability? Mplayer will often play files just fine with the right plugins.. at least on gentoo.
- d
You mention the DRM is easily circumventable. And it is. But then, its just as easy to duplicate the current audiobooks being distributed on tape and CD. But if the DRM can keep the duplication down to the level previously experienced with tapes and CDs, then the content providers can't really complain. And in the meantime, borrowers get the convenience of borrowing from the comfort of their own homes. Win/win. If only all DRM scenarios worked like this.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Sure, you could photocopy the whole thing too, but it's still an ingringement of the copyright terms. Why shouldn't a library protect itself against selfish users who can't return something on time so that others can use it? And no, the fact that this is a digital copy doesn't change anything, as the library still has a license to distirbute a finite number of copies at a time. Just because it is Microsoft's DRM in question, shouldn't distract from the fact that this is a very intelligent use of the concept. There are those who'll never accept any limitations on their pirating (see "Fuck that" below) or copying but surely the key issue is policy not technology? Where it's used and how, not who's produced it?
The second fair use of DRM I have seen sofar. Really using the idea how it should, not to protect something somebody bought a license for, but just to use it in a way the person agreed on beforehand (you borrow the book for 3 weeks is a pre agreed way).
One question though: Does it run on linux?
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
I don't think it's a valid use at all. It's a public library, paid for with public funds, but it distributes midia based on a Microsoft-only DRM plan. Users with Linux (or I expect Apple) who decide not to spend the money on a Microsoft version of the software that will support this DRM approach get less access to material than those who support Microsoft. I think that's an extremely dangerous trend to start with libraries funded with public dollars. Unless the libraries also offer the same media in some form that is available to Linux users, then I would fight this when it rears it's ugly head at my libbrary.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
(1) Write a book of haiku that consist of the serial numbers on each piece of paper money you own. Publish it, set up public performances, etc.
(2) Spend money
(3) Sue companies for copyright infringement
(4) Profit!
I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.
remember the DIVX system Circuit City tried to implement?1 99.htm
http://hometheater.about.com/library/weekly/aa062
This disc format allowed the consumer to make an intitial movie purchase for as low as $4.49, which allowed one to watch the movie as many times as they wanted within a 48 viewing period. In order to watch the film again after that time, the viewer had to reactivate the viewing period with the DIVX computer. In other words, the player was tied in to the phone line and the consumer had to punch in his credit card number to a main-frame computer in Virginia in order to view his movie.
it's basically DRM with another renting schema that fell through. i thought it was actually pretty neat, but i guess because of the physical disc barrier, it wasn't well received. if they can make home theater pcs download these DRMed movies and give them an expiration of 48hours or 1 week or something, I think that'll be totally awesome!
HD Trailers
WMA does not by definition exclude linux, just some company has to license WMA to make a player for linux. It will be costly I would guess, but if Microsoft wants to have support for their DRM, they could make this less costly, and have the support of the linux crowd for their DRM behind them (embrace and maybe not assimilate this time?)
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
It appears your angle is not against DRM, but rather against Microsoft DRM. Ie., DReaM Sun's open DRM initiative should be okay from your point of view.
As a sincere, open question I'd like to ask you: do you believe Open Source can (or cannot) coexist or even cooperate with DRMed media?
No, it is not reasonable, because the world changes.
Some people write books to make money. Some people write books because
it satisfies them personally. Back when book copying was infeasibly
expensive, both of them had an incentive for continuing to write. Now
that copying has become feasibly cheap, those that write only for the
money have less of an incentive, and that is as should be (cue
Heinlein quote).
Establishing artificial restrictions on copying in order to prop up a
failed incentive is ultimately wasteful.
The whole point of renting or leasing (besides the fact that it's a good idea if don't actually WANT to keep the item).. is it's cheaper.
The reason it's cheaper is when you rent a DVD or borrow a book from the library it goes back to be rented or borrowed by others, and so eventually initial costs are covered and profits are made.
This all breaks down with any digital format because items can be duplicated thousands of of times with almost a zero cost (bandwidth or media costs) after their original purchase. Not 'returning' the item won't lead to a loss for the library.
If I borrow something from the library it's unlikely I'm going to want to borrow it again anyway (otherwise I would have bought it), the library isn't going to get anything more from me for that item, so why is expiring the audiobook necessary? Don't they trust me not to duplicate it and give it to others?
No, the reason they can't do this the authors/publishers of said items are after $$$ per reader. This is why IMO more authors should embrace the likes of the street performer protocol
Yeah so it's a more favourable use of DRM, protects the borrowed items from damage or loss, reduces costs of recovery and administration and keeps the library's collection constant and available to all all the time. On the other hand it just shows up other debates often seen here on Slashdot.
Personally I think that media companies can put whatever restrictions they like on the media they publish. However I do not believe that copyright infringement should be a criminal offence (it's clearly not theft, rather a slight increase of supply outside that intended by the owner). Instead it should be up to the copyright holder to recover any losses through the civil courts. If you, or anyone else, doesn't like the restrictions placed upon a copyrighted work - then don't buy/license it.
I work with creating digital goods. I think it is a horribly unreasonable stipulation.
A parallel is the attempt at blocking the use of robots for production (and there were attempts), on the basis that "All the people involved should be making the same amount of money."
The question isn't how we can keep the status quo. The question is "How can we set up a system that maximize the value produced?" If we want professional production, it need to involve *some* form of compensation to authors, editors and publishers for the risk taken, and the time invested. Either through copyright or through something else.
As it is, we have large costs from the copyright system, in the form of very high transaction costs around licensing copyrighted works. The transcation costs of licensing is WAY higher than the cost of making the actual copy. On average, I'd guess it is at least ten time higher, often a hundred times higher.
Cutting these costs would be an enabler. As an example, Shakespeare worked as a collector and rewriter. His works would not be legal to write under the present copyright regime.
While gaining Shakespeare, we would lose Waterworld and soap operas - as that kind of investment in a single item require per-copy returns.
Maybe it would be worth it?
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
And exemplifies just how evil it really is.
What if we couldn't read Einsteins papers because our key is no longer valid? Or if all copies of 1984 suddenly have their keys revoked? DRM in libraries is a horrible thought. I don't care if the terms are fair so far, the concept is bad enough on its own to warrant boycott. You can't accept this stuff in your life if you want society to be an acceptable place in 20 years.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
If you read it, they can.
It should not require an Internet line either,
How else would you suggest they check whether there are copies available? I suppose you could go into the library, but then how would they get the license onto your computer?
and it should be able to run on free software not some attackware that executes on my computer in a manner contrary to my wishes.
The software has to be able to prevent you acting according to your wishes to do what it's meant to.
DRM erasing files on your machine after a given period is WRONG. Lateness should engender late fees, so the person can balance opportunity cost at least.
The fees are called fines for a reason. It's not intended that you decide whether to keep the book longer, just like you shouldn't choose to keep the copy and pay the library, they charge you for the times when you do as a punishment.
You can't "lose" a file like you can lose or destroy a book, and books at least can be distributed for massively less money on cd or online. Such cost savings should be figured in when purchasing and when deciding on checkout policies.
True, and I'm sure they are considered.
Even if the library purchases titles with a maximum simultaneous readers clause in it, if enough copies are available it should extend the period so that late fees are waived.
TFA mentions that these audiobooks can be renewed, just like you would with a physical book.
The library should be able to calculate AVERAGE SIMULTANEOUS READERSHIP of a given title to maximize its investment and give readers some of the benefits of digital technology. In other words, it should allow a burst of MORE simultaneous users than contracted, and then balance that out by artificially reducing the number of titles that can be simultaneously read at a later date. This can be amortized over a Very Long Time (tm), which gives the library some time to consider buying more simultaneous liscenses when it really needs them.
What motivation would a publisher have to license in this fashion though? Most physical books the library buys spend a lot of their time sitting on the shelves, why should they be able to buy less books and copy some of them some of the time?
Libraries should demand contracts with publishers which allow them to calculate average simultaneous readership to allow for readership bursts (say due to holidays or related news events). Libraries must also demand the option to easily purchase more liscenses at a later time based on an industry-wide open standard compliant form.
And if the publishers say no? Libraries are very much beholden to publishers, the income they give the publishers is relatively low. They're in no position to be making demands.
High cost efficiency publishing formats should also be provided, for example providing all the works of a given author, or all the works of a given genre, on one CD. That CD is really cheap to print, it is just about liscense fees. Forget software DRM and accounting systems that watch what you read. Just run some experiments, calculate the average simultaneous readership for the titles, and use this to figure out how many titles the library should buy.
Again, would the publishers be willing to do this?
It seems that with all this hub-bub libraries are probably paying WAY too much for digital media. If a library buys one book and 1000 people read it, that is still I think only one book's worth of money going to the author, is it? Libraries need some help here to protect their purchasing power. Amortizing access over time might be a good idea, then you could allow a large number of copies to be created for the big initial rush but not rent out any copies in the future.
The library has to buy as many copies as it will
I am trolling
In some places, like books, that's not that relevant, because many people just ignore the distribution system and publish their own books, aka, vanity printing.
This is also happening in the music industry, although as the music industry is a cartel that controls entire channels of distribution, it's happening a lot slower. (Whereas with books you can walk up to local bookstores and get them to carry your vanity printed book if they think it's interesting.)
And it's started happening with TV shows. I point you to the fan-made Star Trek, or even cartoons like Strong Bad. Yes, it's crude, and there's no money in it, but people are doing it who couldn't actually produce a real TV show.
That leads to the third option. People not in the industry could convert to the new way. In practice, this is how 50% of all paradigm shifts works. Some companies convert to the new way, and some resisted. Those that resist are left behind.
Book publishers are not going to be left behind. There are already ones that publish free ebooks, there are ones that don't do 'contracts' and 'advances'...you write the book, you pay them to edit it, you pay them to print it, you keep all the money. And, of course, newspapers are desperately trying to reposition themselves in this new world where everyone has an infinitely-big infinitely-fast printing press that lets random people append whatever they want at any time.
The publishing industry 'gets it'. Some parts are scared to death, some parts are worried, and some part are laughing manically as they gain the ability to print a single copy of a book at a sane price. But they all see it coming, and they all see they have to change.
However, the music 'industry' is resisting 100%. Sadly, the music 'industry' is not made up of the people who actually make the music, who are converting in droves.
Which is, of course, the third option. The industry might not change, and might come out with harser and harser laws, and harder to get around technical means.
And while they're doing that, others see a way into the market by not doing that. Eventually rendering the music 'industry' irrelevant.
The TV and movie industry have not reacted much, because copying hasn't been that possible for that, and because entering that industry has incredibly high costs...or, at least, it did.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Bingo.
I don't even think that the usual advice given ("simply don't buy the DRMed media") is realistic. This is my culture. I contribute to it, and I have a right to take part in it. My culture is disseminated (and knitted together) by its mass-media - its music, its TV shows, its films, its art.
If I refuse to partake of the mass-media, I inevitably divorce myself from the culture - I have proven this to myself by not owning a TV for two years. Although it started as simple economics (I was a student, and too broke to afford the licence), I now can't watch much TV before it begins to annoy me (product placement, obvious bias in "impartial" shows, and all... the... damned... advertising...). The net result of this is that I have become more familiar with "online" culture, and somewhat divorced from "mainstream" culture - I can't discuss TV programs with friends, unless they're the ones I download. I can't discuss topical news items, unless they're mirrored on the BBC/CNN/Reuters news sites.
If I refuse to suffer DRMed media, in the future I will in effect be denied access to my own culture.
Put simply, I resent an oligarchy of over-compensated middlemen making me choose between freedom and being an outcast in my own society.
I view it as justified civil disobedience to crack and disseminate circumventions for DRM, and view the current use of DRM the same way I'd view slavery - unethical, unjust and an infrigement of my personal liberty.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
I think only because this is the least evil use of DRM any of us have ever seen, is everyone saying it's a good thing. While it is true that I, and most other people, would be willing to tollerate this kind of DRM, it is still nonetheless evil, and here is why.
When you go to the library to do some research, they have publicly available copying machines. You can make your own copy of anything they have there for a small fee. Typically the fee is whatever it costs for paper, ink, and maintaining the copier. That copy is then yours, it never expires, and you can do whatever you need to with it provided that you're not profiting from the work. This is FAIR USE.
If libraries actually needed to control documents, they would've been loading their copiers with dissapearing inks since the invention of the copier!! What has changed between now and then? Nothing! There is not, and never has been an actual need for DRM. It's just some bullshit scheme by the DRM manufacturers that's been cleverly sold to the library system, which will be shoved down the throats of every day users.
DRM is bad, period. Do not ever accept it as fair, because it is not.