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.