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."

Comments

DRM

[Fuzzy_Nuts]

A perfect use for DRM tech. DRM always catches a bad rep. I for one am glad to see that technology still has a place in everyday america.

Re:DRM

[jurt1235]

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?

Re:DRM

[Lussarn]

The reason this DRM scheme sounds better is in the wording. You loan/rent, when you loan/rent you know you can't resell. You know you can't keep it forever. You know the copy isn't yours at all.

This scheme actully looks very much like other DRM schemes (like the one where student books where destroyed after the semester). The difference is that in that case it was labeled as "buying". Of course no such thing as first sale existed. I have yet to see a DRM scheme where you can resell the goods you own, and therefore I call all existing schemes as renting, and cheating on the consumer who thought they bought the goods.

I know there are some here who defend this with "you buy a licence to play the music", not a licence to own it. That may be true but it isn't in anyway expressed clear enough when you "buy" it.

Re:DRM

[Fuzzy_Nuts]

Thats not what this article was about. The reason it sounds better is becuase it's a fair use system. Presumably the library bought the book, and therefore own a copy of the book. You then agree to borrow the book for a certian amount of time. Whereas when you DRM protect a CD, you cannot let your friend borrow the DRM protected content because you not your friend own the DRM. You cannot sell the DRM to your friend because thats not how it works. The reason this sounds better is because it's an actual fair use agreement.

Re:DRM

[Technician]

The second fair use of DRM I have seen sofar.

Unfortunately for many DRM raises the ugly incompatibility problem. It isn't an Audio CD or MP3. As such it simply won't work in my car during my commute.

On the flip side, stuff in public domain (there is lots) is most often downloadable in MP3 format, can be burnt on a CD as either Audio or MP3 and works fine with most MP3 players.

Fine, I won't listen to the latest Clancy novel, but I can listen to Abbot and Costello, Grocho Marx, Amos & Andy, Jack Benney, The Bickersons, Orson Wells, countless radio mystery shows, and etc.

Re:DRM

[baadger]

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.

Re:DRM

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

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.

Re:DRM

[Total_Wimp]

One question though: Does it run on linux?

Nah. It doesn't run Mac either.

The problem with this DRM doesn't have much to do with fairnes, but rather with lock-in. If you borrow from this library you better be sporting Windows.

This line from the article kind of sums it up: Just as the lack of a standard digital audio format has fragmented the music download market, it affects audiobooks.

In days past, you could buy, rent, borrow from just about anyone and be able to play it on the prevailing media player of the day. In the new digital millenium, you lock yourself out of a significant part of the media world based on your choice of player.

Yeah, you could point to Beta and VHS as an example of what happened in the past, but at least one of those choices was a choice for a variety of companies who make sorce material and media players. This is more like Beta vs. Beta; no matter what you choose, you choose lock-in to one company or another.

I happen to own a Windows SmartPhone, so I could borrow from this library, but I couldn't let my daughter use it on her iPod. If this happend ot be FairPlay instead of WMA, then she could have borrowed it and I'd be stuck. The only way for consumers to win with DRM will be for all the players to agree on one standard, but the weather forcast still looks quite hot in hades at the moment.

TW

Re:DRM

[Grab]

Don't they trust me not to duplicate it and give it to others?

No, because they're not bloody stupid. If you hand it around, that's less income for the authors and publishers, who are the people enforcing these rules.

For music, it makes some sense to have free downloads. Musicians traditionally make their money from gigs and not from CD sales, so more enlightened musicians say "go on, give your friends a copy" in the hope that said friends will be along to the next gig.

But that logic falls down with books. It's been a long time since authors would go on tours and have people pay to hear them read their books. Audio books are alive and well, but only on a recording basis, so the only way of getting money off them is to charge per recording.

The SPP and other systems are a nice idea. Trouble is that experience shows they don't work. Even Stephen King couldn't get enough people to pay for a story delivered by installments about 4 years ago - and if he couldn't make it work, you can forget about anyone else doing it.

Bottom line is that there's a range of prices people will pay for anything, with low and high limits. The low limit is usually "gratis" or close to. If charged, they'll willingly pay anywhere within that range (maybe a bit more unwillingly as you go towards the high limit, but they'll still pay). But if they're asked to donate, they'll typically donate the low limit amount - which often amounts to "gratis". If you get a physical item, people are more likely to put money in the pot, because they can see that the article has cost something to produce. But a file? It costs nothing to upload/download, so why pay for it unless you have to? Like it or not, that's the attitude you're dealing with, and that's why no author will use the SPP to make their living.

Grab.

Re:DRM

[sukotto]

It seems like the US congress will continue to extend copyright indefinitely. If so, nothing that is currently under copyright will *ever* be released to the public domain.

I guess the old joke is true. "If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress?"

But...

[postgrep]

Couldn't someone just use an audio program (cubase, cakewalk etc) to make a loopback recording, effectively making a non-DRM copy? This technology seems effective in expiration dates, but ineffective against piracy. Still.

Re:But...

[cronotk]

Dunno how the laws handle it where you live, but in Germany it's absolutely legal to make copies this way (as long as you do NOT give it to others).
We have a right to make a private copy as long as we do not BREAK a copy-protection.

Lucky us :)

Library Checkout System Outdated?

[taskforce]

Isn't the whole point in returning a book to a library because there are a finite ammount of copies for people to read, so it would be unfair if you kept them for a long time.

If digital audiobooks can have infinite copies made of them and distributed to the Library's members then is there actually a need to have them checked back in?

Re:Library Checkout System Outdated?

[MaineCoon]

It is a licensed work, with a finite number of licenses.

This is similiar to group licensing schemes, where software is licensed for a number of seats at a company but licensing is handled by a server. A limited number of users can use the software at any time. If someone needs to use it and the licenses are used up, someone else must stop using it for the time being (or more licenses must be purchased).

Re:Library Checkout System Outdated?

[BorgDrone]

And this is exactly the problem with DRM and the whole copyright thing.

You have to return a normal dead-tree book because there are only a few copies, and making more copies costs time, materials and money. Because of this, the product is scarce and thus market forces (supply/demand) apply.

Digital media, however, can be copied without any significant costs whatsoever, there is no longer a 'real' scarcity. The publishers are still trying to sell the work on a per-copy basis like they always did, combined with negligible reproduction costs this means lots-of-$$$. Unfortunately for the publishers, consumers are recognizing that there the products scarcity is purely fictional, and they don't accept this.

Re:Library Checkout System Outdated?

[Sancho]

How, then, would you propose to sell "digital media"? If you don't like the per-copy scheme, describe a scheme that will work and allow all people involved to be making the same amount of money they're making now (not an unreasonable stipulation, I think).

Re:Library Checkout System Outdated?

[alicenextdoor]

If you think about current library practices, nobody makes more money if 100 people borrow a book then if 2 people do. Sure, you have to return a physical book before someone else can borrow it, but nobody benefits financially. So why the need to limit borrowings of electronic media? The library buys one copy and pays for it...after that it doesn't matter who read it, in house or out.

Re:Library Checkout System Outdated?

[Eivind]

describe a scheme that will work and allow all people involved to be making the same amount of money they're making now (not an unreasonable stipulation, I think).

Yes, it is *very* unreasonable. New technologies sometimes makes old services or technologies obsolete. This frequently leads to people who used to make money providing those services or technologies to loose money.

Claiming that it's "reasonable" that "all people involved" in the old bussiness of printing and distributing books should earn as much as they did before in the new technology of electronically distributing books is just as reasonable as demanding that the ice-man should keep his pay after the invention of the refridgerator, or that the buggy and whip manufacturers should have the right to hold back the progress of the automobile.

Some jobs remain. Digital books still need one or more authors, good editors, artwork, marketing, and (minimal) distribution. They don't need printing-presses, paper, ink, trucks to drag them around, large shelves for standing on and so on. Those services and technologies are simply, as far as ebooks are concerned, obsolete.

You don't find many monks earning a living by hand-writing bibles these days. Thats a result of the (according to you) "unreasonable" idea that some jobs become obsolete when new technologies solve the same problem simpler/cheaper/better.

Re:Library Checkout System Outdated?

[Sancho]

As others have noted, with a book unavailable if someone else is using it, another demand is created. At our local library, books can be checked out for 3 weeks. It's not uncommon for lazy people to keep the book that long, particularly if it's something they specifically wanted to read (as opposed to the person who continuously has books checked out and basically devours them). If the library only has one copy of that book, and they all keep it out for even only two weeks, then that's 198 weeks before that last person gets to read the book. That's almost 4 years.

The demand, then, is to have the item now. Most people don't want to wait 4 years to read the latest Harry Potter book. As such, sales of the book will be higher than simply people who want to collect the series. I suspect that if everyone could legally download the book for free, there would be a measurable impact on the sales. Oh, I'm sure JK would still be Rowling in the dough (ha ha) but ultimately, she would be making less money. As such, they want to limit this effect and -- funny thing -- as copyright holders, they get to do so.

Re:Library Checkout System Outdated?

[DavidTC]

You forgot the third way: Right now, all media distribution is controlled by very large corporations.

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.

Re:Library Checkout System Outdated?

[swillden]

As such, it's reasonable to assume that no one in the supply chain for the creation of the work itself is going to purposefully take a pay cut just to give people a digital copy of the work.

Consider another point of view, from author Eric Flint, who is the "First Librarian" of the Baen Free Library. The whole essay I linked to is interesting, but here's the conclusion:

The reason I'm not worried about the future is because of another simple truth. One which is even simpler, in fact -- and yet seems to get constantly overlooked in the ruckus over online piracy and what (if anything) to do about it. To wit:

Nobody has yet come up with any technology -- nor is it on the horizon -- which could possibly replace authors as the producers of fiction. Nor has anyone suggested that there is any likelihood of the market for that product drying up.

The only issue, therefore, is simply the means by which authors get paid for their work.

[...]

The future can't be foretold. But, whatever happens, so long as writers are essential to the process of producing fiction -- along with editors, publishers, proofreaders (if you think a computer can proofread, you're nuts) and all the other people whose work is needed for it -- they will get paid. Because they have, as a class if not as individuals, a monopoly on the product. Far easier to figure out new ways of generating income -- as we hope to do with the Baen Free Library -- than to tie ourselves and society as a whole into knots. Which are likely to be Gordian Knots, to boot.

Flint hit it right on the head, IMO. There is no reason that authors should be guaranteed their current level of income. But neither is there any reason for authors to get worried that their profession will go away. Freely redistributable digital media will change the model, and there will be some pain during the transition, but as long as people want to read, and as long as authors need to eat, there will be a way for people to get paid for writing.

You probably think I'm missing your point, which is that authors won't *choose* to take a pay cut just to provide us with digital media. I didn't miss it. But the fact is that there is demand for digital media, so some enterprising authors and publishers will begin to take advantage of it. Baen's Webscriptions model is a good example; it's both highly profitable and DRM-free. It won't work for every kind of creative work, and it may not work, as is, forever, but it's exactly the kind of creative thinking we need... people figuring out how to adapt to the new realities, rather than keep churning out the buggy whips.

Valid use for DRM

[aussie_a]

I think this is a perfectly valid use for DRM. It allows libraries to offer digital content, without screwing over the copyright holder. It's not like libraries are able to photocopy entire books and lend them out.

There is no way to be able to force people to delete it on their computer except via DRM. People who use this content, AREN'T paying for it (at least in most public libraries), and while it's most likely very easy to break the DRM, the library isn't forced to enforce their DRM, their responsibility (and liability) stop at placing the DRM onto the content. Unlike commercial copyright distributors, they don't need to make it more convoluted with a harder system to stop people from breaking the DRM.

It's unfortunate that a Microsoft DRM is being used (as I assume it can only be played on Microsoft systems), but it's most likely the easiest and most well known DRM to the people that put the DRM on the content (and the library staff can most likely offer trouble-shooting help with it as a result).

Re:Valid use for DRM

[LordLucless]

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.

Workable DRM

[LordLucless]

This is actually one of the few types of DRM that I can actually see as being worthwhile. That is, a type of DRM that emulates the current, physical limitations of property in digital space rather than manufacturing artificial restrictions.

This sort of feature makes libraries more accessible, without lmiting the borrowers any more than the previous system. If this is the sort of thing DRM is going to be used for, then good for it. I doubt it though.

Re:Workable DRM

[LordLucless]

Perhaps I used poor terminology. I should say that the DRM used in this scenario creates no additional restrictions - it creates digital objects that have the same restrictions as their physical counterparts. Provided there are no irritating side-effects to this restriction, I don't have a problem with it. What I object to is when a digital object is DRM-encumbered in such a way that it is more restricted than it's physical counterpart - like CDs that won't play in certain computers, or DVDs that cannot be played in a country other than that which they are purchased in.

It may be, as you imply with your analogy, that the old way is passing away, and soon we'll all enjoy infinitely redistributable content. But I wouldn't bet on it. Schemes to artificially limit demand (which is essentially what DRM, copyright, and all that jazz is) are generally successful and sustainable for the ones implementing it - that's why there are anti-trust laws against some instances of it. If it was something that would intrinsically fail, it wouldn't need to be regulated. I'm afraid the current model of licensing and artificial scarcity is going to be with us for a while.

Not cracked yet?

[putko]

I guess as soon as you can watch Star Wars with this stuff, the DRM will get cracked in a few days.

Pure software methods always get cracked. Even hardware, as Bruce Schneier mentions, gets cracked, routinely. It really is just a question of how much time, and how much resources it takes to break it. The problem with digital stuff is that once you do it, you've cracked it for everyone.

The town of "Fucking" (that really is the name) in Austria had a problem with people stealing the signs. They recently moved to a new system, where the signs are really hard to steal. But as the mayor said -- "it would take all night to steal". Not, "you can't steal it" -- but it will take so long that someone will/may come along and arrest you before you make off with it.

With DRM, the guy gets to take the "sign" home for a few weeks at a time, until he can manage to crack it -- and once he does, you don't have any clue that he's done it.

Re:Clearly Nessisary

[DMouse]

Because they need to return it because having it checked out stops other people from using it...

Re:What is the problem..

[buyo-kun]

Audiobooks... I can't figure out what the problem is with reading... Dyslexia, blindness and other disabilities are what makes reading a problem for many. As for the DRM, I think its a terrible idea, anyone intending to copy the file could do so easily. The only effect this will have is against lazy people: those unwilling to make the trip to the website or library to "return" the file but this efficiency is greatly outweighted by the cost of implementing this system.

The whole system will crumble

[A beautiful mind]

I ment the Intellectual Property / Copyright one, not the library.

In the internet age where someone wants to claim ownership to various bitflows, it just simply doesn't work. The whole definition of storing and copying bitflows invalidates the entire system of intellectual property because of it's given nature. In this environment IP and Copyright is an outdated system blocking innovation.

Sooner or later the pressure will be too high as the internet gets into more and more areas of our life, it will force the rethinking of the information restricting laws.

This library attempt to introducte DRM is especially a bad case since libraries should be storehouses of information, not restricters of them.

Someone will surely try to point me to the positive sides of IP and Copyright. There are some, but as of today the benefits are far outweighted by the negative effect it creates, even on innovation. Without patent protection, people would still create, or even create much more freely. In the age of internet, it is even concivable that those people would cooperate strengthening innovation. It is the human nature to create, just look at the F/OSS movement.

Before someone brings up the example of drugs, let me try to answer it: those companies researching would still research, but they would also need to compete on manufacturing those drugs the best possible way and no such situation could arise where they try to sell AIDS medicine to poor african countries at the price of 20 times of the manufacturing costs only because of someone's intellectual property.

Let me put it this way: IP stiffles teamwork and derivative works. In today's age that is a huge loss, instead of the whole internet community working on something, only a selected few can, which makes it slow and expensive. Would huge corporations still rake wild profits from selling a drug? No. Would they make a decent profit from manufacturing them? Absolutely.

Let's get back to a world where we stick to physical reality, not imaginary intellectual property.

Re:What is the problem..

[SolitaryMan]

Audiobooks... I can't figure out what the problem is with reading...

I can give you several reasons:

1. You can listen to the audio book, when there is no light or it is not satisfactory. (I do that when I travel by train at night)
2. You can listen to it when you are jogging, walking or driving.
3. When I come back from work, my eyes are already tired enough, so reading can be literally painful...

Re:Clearly Nessisary

[kahei]

The point here is that there is only a license for 1 person to read it at once -- and it is the library's responsibility to enforce that, otherwise they would be unlawfully distributing the work.

This has been a public service announcement.

Re:I wish my library had this

[tacocat]

I would think this is a major detraction from my libraries largest source of income, me and late fees.

Whew...

[Edward Teach]

It is a good thing no one can hook the audio out to a tape recorder. Man, we would be in real trouble then!

Re:Missing The Point?

[Crash Culligan]

The whole reason of returning library books/media is so that others may borrow it.

Surely this is not necessary when borrowing an easily reproducible copy.

And that's exactly what I thought when I saw this. Due dates are a way of managing scarcity: the library only has so many copies in stock, so they insist that copies only be out for a certain amount of time. The fine they levy for not bringing it back in time is not so much a revenue stream as an incentive for patrons to bring the media back in time.

Digital copies mean that given a single original, one can create any number of identical duplicates. It should herald an end to information scarcity. The problem is that too many businesses, content producers, etc. are totally incapable of crafting a business model based on abundance. In their defense, it may not be possible to do so.

That's the reason for the DRM in this case: rather than buy all the audio books themselves, the libraries pay a small fee, get a number of licenses, and can lease those out for a limited time. It's not so much the library that's using the DRM to check books back, it's that the company making the audiobooks available to them will only let them offer books for a limited time.

Congratulations to the libraries on finding a way to make audiobooks available cheaply to its patrons and eliminating the need to bring the books back, but deep down I'm still fuming. It won't end until someone finds a way to DRM money and jams it down the industry's throat... and actually, that gives me a wicked idea. But how to pull it off...?

Libraries should rethink DRM

[mattr]

To posters who said this is why DRM is useful, consider what is the POINT of a library?

It is not a bookstore or cd/video rental shop. Patrons do not pay money each time they take a book out. They may be charged late fees due to scarcity issues, but the main idea is to enable the person to read the content.

The person can come back many times to take the book out again if he needs more time. But there is no point physically going to the library if it is a digital item on his drive.

In other words, even if the liscense required only a fixed number of people being able to view a title at a given time, it STILL would not make sense, because the DRM does not know if there are enough other copies to go around. It might be that nobody else is in fact interested in the file.

Therefore, the idea of a DRM "period" is bogus. At the very least, the user should be able to add another period if there are enough copies left in the stacks. It should not require an Internet line either, 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.

I have another point that may be unpopular with big business. It would be much better in my book if the library was able to purchase more items on a sliding scale as things got more popular, but not be bound to micromanage every copy on a user's hard drive.

You see, the point of the library is to ensure that everyone can get access to information, not just people with a lot of disposable income. You don't have to go buy the book or cd/dvd if your library has it. A library is not intended to be a marketing mechanism that makes you want to go buy the title. It is not intended to respond to the marketplace due to its competition with a bookstore/rental shop.

Considering that most people don't check the same book out of their library over and over again, a library normally wouldn't care if the user had a way to keep copies after returning them. The library has no responsibility for making sure that the user does not keep a copy on his drive even after the first time the user has read the copy, because it is there to promote access, not control access (except adult content maybe). If there is a good library nearby, you should never have to go to a store to get what you want.

Therefore, it stands to reason that:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Libraries should fight tooth and nail against DRM that erases information and any other tools that undermine what a library is typically supposed to do.
7. High cost

Re:The Only Problem

[Pofy]

>Many people in this thread have already
>commented on how this is a perfectly valid use
>of DRM. I completely agree with that. I actually
>think that _any_ instance where the copyright
>holder puts DRM on something is perfectly valid;
>after all, they _are_ the copyright holder. So
>far so good.

However, most of the DRM part has NOTHING to do with copyright. Restricting how long you can view or read something has nothing to do with copyright. The copyright holder has no exclusive right for that. The copyright holder can control a few things such as copying and public performance due to being exclusive to them, nothing else. DRM however, add completely new control over things that has nothing to do with copyright.

Linux support

[jurt1235]

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?)

Re:Linux support

[BraceletWinner]

Well, yes, WMA DOES exclude Linux:
Michael Robertson (Linspire) wrote in an article that he had actually contacted Microsoft about WMA licensing, yet Microsoft actively REFUSED to license it to his Linux distribution (ok, well, it seems WMA was allowed, but not the Digital Restrictions Management component).

I am a former employee of a company (Zapmedia - no longer in business) that made a set top box for TVs that ran on Linux and had WMA/WMV with DRM, so it has happened. I'm not saying this guy is wrong, just that in the right situation, MS will license it for Linux.

Re:Pointless and wrong

[DaveV1.0]

Alas, you are wrong. Audiobooks exsist under the same copyright law that books exsist under.

Just as a library may not buy a book, make copies of it and then give away copies of said book with out the copyright holders permission, a library may not make copies of audiobook and then give them away.

Copyright law has it's place, and thought it may be abused, it still protects the rights of the creators of works or those that pay for the work to be created.

Authors rely on sales for their livelyhood. How many of your favorite books would not have been written if the author had to wait tables or work construction to put food on the table and a roof over their head? Would you do your job for free?

You think that because an audiobook can be cheaply copied, that it right to do so. I wish people such as yourself would remember that just because something can be done does not make it right or fair to do it.

Re:Missing The Point?

[mankey wanker]

I found your post interesting for its digression on DRMed money. Frankly, how is money not DRMed already?

I am having a Morpheus (from The Matrix) moment: Do you think that's gold in your pockets?

Any time they wish to devalue the money in your pockets they can print more of it. It has no intrinsic value of its own. We believe in money the same way we believe in God - it's all faith based until the music ends and you get stuck holding a wallet or checkbook notations of worthless paper.

Our whole economy is based on this idea - attenuated barter based on the exchange of items having no intrinsic value of their own (paper money and non-precious metal coins). It is because of the very elastic (inflationary) nature of the money that they can steal from you.

Gold is only better than paper money in one way - it is not very elastic and there is real scarcity. As gold is an element, unless you can solve the question confounding alchemists through the centuries you will find that the supply is indeed finite. You can discover more, but you can't just make more (via printing), and that's why it makes a better means of exchange. And interestingly, gold really does have many unique and interesting properties that make it valuable in itself - intrinsically.

Now what's better than gold? Real estate. That's how smart people "store" their money for safe keeping unless they are using it in other types of investments. Sadly, even the value of real estate is largely theoretical because they have ways to appropriate that too - they call it property taxes but it has the effect of converting the real property that you might own into something that you "lease" via continual payment of a property tax. When you fail to pay the tax, they just come and take your very real property away from you. Remarkable! And so few complain...

So I don't know about your "wicked idea" but I think they already thought of it before you, then they built up a way to continually set up the marks for the big con - we call it "government." They sold it to us via Art. I, sect. 10 of the Constitution - but they played bait and switch on us too. It's not gold, it's paper - and it's worthless. And it's not really real estate if they are just treating you like a serf on the land belonging to the banks/fedual lords.

Okay, I am done with playing Morpheus and trying to tell you how the world really works.

Ultimately not reasonable.

[k.a.f.]

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.

Some audio cards already allow it.

[WidescreenFreak]

Most sound cards are full-duplex and allow the input to be the mixer or "as you hear it". So, they effectively already have a loopback built into them. I've done this before in Windows.

- Set the input to be the mixer or the "as you hear it" function
- Start the Sound Recorder (or other sound editing program)
- Open the audio file in another tool
- Start recording
- Start playing
- Done

Even then, how many of us have multiple computers? Here is a simple and effective DRM disabler:
Line out (PC 1) --> Line in (PC 2)

That's the thing that fervent, DRM supports just don't seem to understand. If you can hear it, you can record it.

Re:Some audio cards already allow it.

[shark72]

"That's the thing that fervent, DRM supports just don't seem to understand. If you can hear it, you can record it."

I'm sure they understand this just fine. They understand that it is impossible to make something absolutely copy-proof, so they settle for "sufficiently difficult."

If you're not sure what I mean, consider the auto security business or even the home security business. It's impossible to make a cost-effective auto security system that will thwart the thief who has sufficient training and who has sufficient desire to take your car. However, 99% of car thieves don't fall into this category, so a decent security system is usually good enough.

Slashdotters often think that because they have the motivation and the skills to jump through hoops to defeat DRM, then the public at large must also have this same motivation and skill. But, let's face it: when it comes to things technical, Slashdot readers are often up above the 90th percentile.

DRM is bad, period.

[nothingx]

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.

It is a pack with the devil though

[einhverfr]

I wonder though how the industry will eventually respond now that the DMCA has given them commercial rights to restrict access to digital works.

Which would you rather have? Everybody forced to buy their own copies? Or being able to borrow them at the library?

I think it is only a matter of time before our libraries are targetted by the industry as unfair competition.