Slashdot Mirror
U.K. Group Wants DRM'd Media Labeled
peterfa writes "The BBC reports that the U.K. 'All Party Parliamentary Internet Group' wants companies to label their DRMed products. Consumers will see a label on the product before they buy. The label will spell out clearly just how easy it is to copy media, and what they can and cannot do. This is in response to Sony BMG and their virus-like DRM. The group claims the industry is turning media into a rent system, rather than a purchase system."
I wonder what their response will be to the request to label their products and how their DRMed, and make it "crystal clear" (nice irony) to the consumers. I propose they go even further.
I've encountered a couple of CDs which had some message to the effect, "while every attempt has been made to ensure an enjoyable experience, blah, blah, blah, ... we cannot guarantee this disc
will play on every and all of your devices." And, all of those
(btw, the print is so small, it's unreadable) actually did play
on my computer, and not in my car, and I had to go through a few
hoops to return what the store claimed was "non-returnable".
Since they are knowingly creating a corrupt version of what is or should be a standard format (compact disc), it should be their responsibility to allow the consumer to know positively for sure what devices and manufacturers their product will be guaranteed to play on. This, in addition to the clear and explicit list of how the tracks may be copied, .... all of the other suggestions in the
article.
From the article: "The group claims the industry is turning media into a rent system, rather than a purchase system." If that's the case, and it does appear that's the industry's direction, they're changing the rules as they previously existed, even more reason they should list the constraints and restrictions of their product. By visual inspection alone, it is impossible to look at a CD and know whether it is of the "corrupt" ilk.
Does it seem ironic there are laws requiring "explicit lyrics" warnings on CDs, and not information that explains whether or not you can even play the damn things?
(would have posted this a moment sooner, took me a second to find the "Read More..." link. ;-) )
1. "Infected with DRM".
2. "Statutory warning: DRM is injurious to your sense of fair-play".
etc... and meanwhile:
Why not label devices and products that support DRM? That would be a more effective step to 'inform' consunmers, one would've thought...
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
The label will spell out clearly just how easy it is to copy media
I'd suggest a color coded advisory system.
I thought about this idea some time ago, and came up with a system where the media's friendliness was measured according to three aspects:
The media should contain no measures to prevent or deter duplication, nor should it require measures on the part of the playback platform to support such deterrents.
The media should contain no measures to prevent or deter redistribution, nor should it require measures on the part of the playback platform to support such deterrents.
Usage of the media should not be monitored, metered, or compromise the user's privacy or usage habits in any other way, nor should it require measures on the part of the playback platform to support such monitoring.
Each aspect would represent one leg of an iconic triangle. The triangle logo (and sub-permutations thereof) would be trademarked so it could only lawfully be used by the authority performing the evaluations. So all you'd have to do to know which media were safe would be to look for a complete triangle.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
In the old days I'd buy records and copy them to tape - only play the record once. Later I'd buy the cd's and rip 'em to mp3's. Until I bought a few 'unrippable' cd's. I can't be bothered searching for notices, stickers etc... got burnt to many times. :-)
Now I just obtain unrestricted mp3's wherever I can eg AllofMp3.com. They say the return royalties to the artist, and that's good enough for me. I'm sure the RIAA etc.. are more than willing to sue if they think they have a case
I'll buy from the labels when they make media that's usefull to me.
Found on some "what's new" notes for a product I was rolling out
"Optimised query by using where instead of joins"
"If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed"
- Peter Lee, Disney executive
...in the UK, anyway.
It's better that the consumer be forewarned about what they can and can't do with the movie/music that they bought, than to buy it first, and then frustratingly run into it later.
But are there going to be different versions of the same CD?
1. Paul Oakenfold, with DRM copy protection
2. Paul Oakenfold, without DRM copy protection
Are they going to be the same price? If so, then what incentive would a consumer have to buy the DRM version?
Maybe what will happen is that ONLY the DRM version is sold. But then what do you do if (as the article mentions) you need to copy it to review it (which is allowed in the UK)? Buy the same CD twice? "Yeah right. I can't do my job because I can't make a copy of the CD. What do I do? Thank god for the PirateBay!"
But at least somone is thinking of the consumer so that he's not smacked in the face by DRM.
Respect the laws of physics, for the laws of physics have no respect for you.
But, as my sister told me when we discussed this, they will likely chalk it up to "technology has moved on" and view it the same way they view VHS as not playing in DVD players, and simply rebuy the same movie/album, again.
Another even closer example is cassette tapes, many people had huge collections when the switch to CD's was made...
I'm not sure either how consumers will respond to the natural evolution of digital music. With ITMS stuff they would still be able to play it on a computer even if a newer kind of non-iPod came along that people really wanted, so in a way it's not as lost as tapes were after players were really phased out.
The question I have though is what would really come along that would be compelling enough to supplant the iPod for the market at large? The iPod grew because you could rip CD's and easily get them on your iPod where they are more accessible... and now the library grows through ITMS purchases (for many people, not all). So that would indicate that in the future the iPod lockin effect Apple seeks would indeed grab hold as many people's whole music libraries are digital now and they'd be more likley to buy a player that would work with it, probably a lot more likley. Between tapes and CD's you had the change to random access, but what is compelling about a change from one digital format to another? With video you can go with quality but with audio a lot of people really can't tell if an MP3 is better or worse than FLAC and so efforts for improved digital audio formats are stillborn, like SACD.
Once in digital form I don't see any given player offering so much of an advantage that it overcomes the simple ability to use all the music you already have. The only way for anyone to break Apple's hold on the market is to start selling all music in MP3's, then that allows people to choose whatever player they like and possibly have even more players, some of them more specialized. But the music industry itself is steadfast in actions that ensure Apple will remain at the helm - and they've just given Apple a few more years by contract to work on pulling the noose tighter.
Perhaps if eMusic really takes off we'd see more record companies finally wake up and sell MP3's (like Werkshop). If enough major labels did that it would free up the logjamm, and then Apple could release an official version of JHymn to unlock all the ITMS music so it would just be straight-up AAC.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Unfortuately that's not disproportionate by their own standards: There are countries where (for several years already) one could not go (or take one's kids!) to the movies without being exposed to media companies' threats of detention and rape.
When the first wave of "enthusiatic" DRM measures for CDs came out in the UK, a few major magazines took to making note of it in their album reviews. e.g.
Major Artist - New Album
Doesn't actually work in the office CD player due to "rights management". So we've no idea. The boxart is nice, though.
0/5
and so on.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
...[when] the iPod isn't as in-style as it is now, there will be a backlash of customers realizing that they paid for something they cannot easily use on "other" players
Which is why I stopped buying from iTunes once JHymn stopped working (although apparently you can install iTunes 5, open a new account, never upgrade the software, and JHymn will still work).
Hmmm...maybe I should just try that.
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
Just my 2p, but I found that when you actually explain what DRM is and how it restricts bought music content to a new user, it puts them right off it from the start. Recently my sister was looking for somewhere to purchase some songs, but hadn't yet bought an mp3 player. I told her that if she used iTunes or any other equivilant service she could find that the mp3 player on eBay for £30 that she wanted would not play it. She forgot about it in the end and got the track off a friend.
Way to go DRM, you missed a sale.
I have heard this (the GMO argument) or at least similar arguments before. This points to a problem with the term 'Genetically Modified'. Is there a better term? One that would make it clear when one is speaking of rat asshole corn, and not of things that occur in nature?
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
I don't think people did buy cassette copies of vinyl LPs they already owned. When cassette was king, everybody I knew bought vinyl LPs, taped them at home on their music centres [1970s] or midi systems [1980s], and listened mostly to the cassettes. And then re-recorded them onto a new cassette when the old one got chewed up.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I'm not from the UK, but a US version of this needs to happen. I also think this needs to be instituted for all types of media: audio, video, and even video/computer games. We need a nice big sticker that says something about how this media contains technology designed to prevent you from copying it. And how the DMCA makes that illegal. And how you won't be able to make a backup (too bad if your kids scratch it). And how it's not going to play on your car stereo. Et cetera, et cetera.
If this is not sold, but licensed, then you get 28 days to refuse a contract for any reason that you decide. If it isn't a contract, then they cannot restrict your use of the product (and if they are doing so, it falls foul of fraud and/or UCCTA) beyond the reins of copyright.