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."

Comments

go even further

[yagu]

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. ;-) )

Re:go even further

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the DRM sticker would be more welcomed on the face of the CDs than the Explicit Lyrics one, since DRM, as proven by Sony, can be much more damaging to the consumer than swearing in songs.

Re:go even further

[bmc152006]

even further still, keep all the DRM'D crap in a completely different display.

Re:go even further

[Itsacon]

It's being sold as an audio CD. You have a reasonable expectation that it will work in your audio CD player(s). If it doesn't, then as far as I'm concerned either the CD or the player(s) is faulty. Assuming your player(s) work(s) with other CDs, the implication would be that it's the CD that's faulty. Therefore, you're entitled to a refund, end of story.

Actually, right from the beginning, Philips has made a stand that these copy protected CD's are never sold with the 'CD-Compact Disc' label on it, since they do not comply with the Red Book standard Sony and Philips published back in 1982.

So if you're shopping for a CD and the logo is not on it, it's a good signal to read a the small print. In my experience, you'll often find copyright notices for the copyprotection on there somewhere. :-P

However, it seems to me that right from the beginning this stuff has gone the wrong way. Hackers and pirates are way more inventive that 'regular' consumers, so any copy protection will be cracked (after all, if it was IMPOSSIBLE to get the audio off there, it would never sell), while Joe Average will never get it to play on his car stereo.

I rip all my CD's to my harddisk, since I like variation, and a big harddrive with WinAmp is a much better CD-changer than a real CD-changer ever will be. I have over time bought several DRM'ed CD's, and none of them have EVER given me much trouble ripping them. Most work was one that required the 'black marker on the outer ring' trick.

My two cents...

Re:go even further

[farnz]

Just to be clear: the Consumer Protection Distance Selling (Returns) Regulations allow you to return anything you buy at a distance (i.e. mail order, online, telephone) within 7 days of receipt for any reason, at no charge. They're aiming to give you the same chance to inspect the goods as you'd have in a retail store. Some items (such as CDs) are exempted from these regulations, and all other regulations that don't need a specific reason to return goods.

On the other hand, no goods are exempted from the Sale of Goods Act requirement that goods are "fit for purpose". This means that if they're selling something that the legal "reasonable man" would expect to be a CD, they have to make it clear to you at time of sale (before you hand over your money) that this is not a CD, and you can't expect it to play in all CD players. If it doesn't play (and therefore is faulty), it's up to them to demonstrate that it's your equipment at fault, not the "CD".

Re:go even further

[Phreakiture]

I think that the DRM sticker would be more welcomed on the face of the CDs than the Explicit Lyrics one, since DRM, as proven by Sony, can be much more damaging to the consumer than swearing in songs.

In many cases, it is actually in the record label's interest to post the "Tipper Tag" (Explicit lyrics label) because it will, quite frequently, boost sales.

The DRM warning, on the other hand, will most likely cut sales, ergo it is not in the label's interest.

label

[radicalnerd]

The label will spell out clearly just how easy it is to copy media
I'd suggest a color coded advisory system.

Three-Pronged Evaluation

[ewhac]

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:

1. Ability to Copy
   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.
2. Ability to Distribute
   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.
3. No Usage Monitoring/Metering
   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

AllofMp3.com

[okster]

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.

Knowledge is power

[Swifti]

"If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed"

- Peter Lee, Disney executive

Re:Knowledge is power

[donaldm]

I think the average person (say 99% and I am being optimistic - sigh!!) knows nothing about DRM and most likely will not care until they want to save their purchase to a different format because their original purchase is now obsolete, but by then it is far to late. Think vinyl records and pre-recorded tape (ie. cassett, cartridges and real-to-real tapes).

At least with ogg or even mp3 you have a chance of preserving your record collection. Still the best way to get around DRM is to record off free-to-air music channels and then rip this to ogg or mp3. This does take time but you can get a good selection and it is free although the Music Industry would love to stop this as well.

Now we know that as soon as the music goes to your ears then it is fair game for copying until the Music industry comes up with something that can stop this. It would be interesting or should I say horrifying to see what the "spin" from the Music Industry would be to do this and it would be sad indictment on our species if they did not rise up against any proposal to limit the listening of music to those who have paid for it. I am not condoning piracy but no one is going to stop me listening to music on a radio or TV and taping it if I choose to do so.

Or tapes

[SuperKendall]

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.

And sell it under a misleading, standard name...

[D4C5CE]

Since they are knowingly creating a corrupt version of what is or should be a standard format (compact disc)...

...they should go to jail?

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.

Re:At least someone is thinking about the consumer

[iainl]

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.

Re:Definitely, DRM products should be labeled.

[Russellkhan]

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?