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."
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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.