Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Backs Apple's iTunes DRM
breun writes "The U.S. has asked foreign governments to consider the effects of interfering with popular new technologies, pointing to recent scrutiny of Apple's iTunes Music Store as an example of bad judgment. The U.S. Justice Department's antitrust chief Thomas Barnett cited recent foreign proposals to impose restrictions on Apple's iTunes service as an example of strict regulation which could discourage innovation and hurt consumers." From the Washington Post article: "In prepared remarks, Barnett said the scrutiny of Apple 'provides a useful illustration of how an attack on intellectual property rights can threaten dynamic innovation.' Barnett said Apple should be applauded for creating a legal, profitable and easy-to-use system for downloading music and other entertainment via the Internet."
Really? And here I thought it just represented some government's that are *shock* looking out for their constituents right! THE HORROR!
'a useful illustration of how an attack from intellectual property rights-holders can threaten dynamic innovation.'
Fixed that for you, Barnett.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
"All your music are belong to us" -GW
i support the right to offend.
The U.S. Government has recieved and gratefully appreciates Apples donation.
So how much is Apple paying into the "Inside The Beltway" lobbying fund to get this level of government support?
provides a useful illustration of how an attack on intellectual property rights can threaten dynamic innovation
Of course, if it wasn't for the absurd excessive strength of intellectual property rights in the west today, we'd have had this "innovation" six years ago. The technology and market was ready for something like the iTMS years before the iTMS itself. The only thing holding it back before that was the pride of the IP holders.
The real problem these people have isn't that limiting intellectual property "rights" inhibits innovation; the problem is that limiting intellectual property "rights" lets innovation happen in ways that the power brokers in America can't control.
Isn't the whole point of DRM to restrict what consumers can do, thereby harming consumers?
How TF can restricting DRM then harm consumers?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
IOW: Only the US has the right to make laws.
Only the USA can liberate things, people and oil.
No country is allowed to break USA-created-DRM.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
...why Microsoft has been getting such a mild treatment...
Too easy to see whose side our government is on. And this from an Anti-Trust Chief of all people!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The US GOVERNMENT is warning other governments against too much regulation?
ResidntGeek
This is obviously more business interest than concern for foreign consumers speaking. :-)
How does openness and interoperability between different devices discourage competition? Of course it discourages Apple from donating money to "a top U.S. antitrust official"
And how exactly am I as a customer being hurt by being able to play your music where I want? I'll probably get a heart attack from overenjoying myself.
Ever since pirates were found to be way cooler than ninjas.
Sure, because DRM never interfered with fair use, or anything... and all countries have the exact same copyright laws as the US.
To throw your own argument back in your face - since when is artifically limiting my ability to use something I bought as I see fit a "right" of some company?
Many here on slashdot will attack them for their viewpoint but basically they're right. So what do i mean with "basically"?
You, the consumers, should have no obligation to go into contract with anyone if you don't like the conditions. But the people offering stuff have exactly the same right. So if they choose to use terms like "we have the right to fuck you in the ass if you purchase this music file" then they have every right to do so and if you accept those contracts you gonna have to put up with something you most probably don't like. But this is your CHOICE.
This hole topic is just not a problem. If you don't like big corporations using DRM to violate your rights (the way you percive them) then don't use their services. It's not like we're talking food or other essential stuff, just ignore their offering and they'll learn by themself. Any other behaviour either encourages them or weakens your standpoint.
Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
Posted Anono for no reason whatsoever...
Apple 'provides a useful illustration of how an attack on intellectual property rights can threaten dynamic innovation.'
Third party manufacturers cannot make Wi-Fi or UPNP streaming devices since they can't decrypt the DRM, programmers can't write plugins to dynamically mash-up your favourite tracks, etc etc etc, since Apple impedes your property rights with their digital restricitons.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how regulations that prevent Apple from restricting consumer rights are a problem, and how they might be stifling innovation. I'm a bit dismayed by society succumbing to Corporations.
while(1)
{
print "copyright infringement != stealing" . "\n";
}
You know what, this ignorant-ass troll post pisses me off so bad, I feel compelled to further correct your idiocy.
The french itunes DRM fiasco, which spawned this whole debate, wasn't about stealing music. It was about buying some shit on itunes, then having the right, as a consumer, to play it on devices other than the freaking ipod. The original law in france was that companies (such as apple) would have to "share DRM secrets to allow competitors to create compatible devices, eventually allowing other music services to offer music for the most popular music player" (from macnn.com).
Of course, don't let that stop your knee-jerk "goddamned hippie pirates want everything for free" trolls.
Some innovations should be stifled. 'Innovation' itself is neither good or bad, but particular innovations sure can be one or the other..
I can't believe you *ACTUALLY* wrote all that crap to defend Big Brother.
h n-Perkins/dp/0452287081/sr=1-2/qid=1158268344/ref= pd_bbs_2/103-3467514-1933419?ie=UTF8&s=books/
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-Jo
Jes
If governments don't allow companies to create cool new stuff and sell them however they want, then consumers won't get to buy cool new stuff. That'd be free market thinkin.
If you don't like Apple's DRM, go buy a CD. It's not like Apple is a label and is keeping music from being released for other platforms (yes, I meant it that way).
(Someone correct me if I'm wrong - is Apple Computer doing exclusive media deals with anyone?)
Finally, if you don't like Apple's DRM, then burn the tunes to a regular CD and do whatever you want with it. (someone is going to say "yeah, but that's not really CD quality audio", to which I say "yeah, but CDs aren't vinyl quality audio")
That VOIP and peer-to-peer are technologies that threaten life on Earth itself -- or so the Administration has contended -- while Apple's DRM should be exempt from regulation because regulation is bad for innovation.
Can someone explain this to me? I'm just not getting it.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
When you agreed to their license, which was a binding legal contract. If you don't agree to their license, and therefore don't get their product, you're not affected.
DRM doesn't intrinsically interfere with fair use, because non DRM'd media is not affected. The license, not the technology, is what harms your rights.
Q. Since when is it the right of the company to do anything?
A. Since I agreed to it.
arrghhh...attack sacred apple cow...or defend drm-happy u.s. govnt.....apple...govnt...apple..govnt.
Arrrrrrghhh....
BOOOSH!
Now that's an oxymoron. (Like military intelligence.)
I get to pick two, right?
Be true and faithful like your dog; but don't eat vomit like your dog
Technically it's fraud. In any case, it's still illegal.
And I thought that I, the iTunes one-click sucker shopper, was the constituent. Silly me. I should have realized it was a large multi-national corporation that forces indentured servitude upon Chinese women.
Just as soon as you all stop interfering with us, we'll do that. Thanks so much.
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
and dont let your "too high and mighty to pirate some software" stance cloud your vision to seen that the government and some companies (RIAA, not Apple) are p0wning you
i support the right to offend.
Oh sure. I agree. The DRM is an excellent example of how the property rights of the public domain can be violated. Since the stated purpose of copyright is to encourage innovation, it's illogical (and an ex-post facto law) for the copyright extension to be applied retroactively to works already created.
The DMCA "discourages innovation" by preventing people from referse engineering their software, even for the purpose of interoperability. Why doesn't congress reflect on that for a while.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Sorry, no contract is legally binding if you're not allowed to read it before purchasing. With a music even after you buy it you never agree to their terms since they are never presented to you. Besides that, it's a license not a contract which has to be signed by an individual one way or another. What if I'm a company and buy a bunch of cds with a company credit card. No identity ever signed a contract, no person is responsible.
DRM does intrinsically interfere with fair use as I'm explicity allowed to format shift and resample. The minute I have to break DRM to accomplish either of those then my fair use is comprimised without my consent.
apparently you misunderstood, I was referring to the french people looking out for their people's rights...
Shrink-wrap licenses are not contracts. There is no consideration, and you don't even see the contract before you have to "agree" to it.
FC Closer
This argument in favor of DRM sounds rather like an old argument over slavery. Did a slave owner have the "right" to bring slaves into free states? And once there, did the slave owner have the right not be deprived of his "property" should said property escape? Indeed, the state might be obliged to assist the owner in recovering his property. Anyone who saw a fugitive slave and didn't report it might even be in trouble for negligence and dereliction of duty. Any state that granted such property rights would be a de facto slave state, no matter whether it was labelled a free state. That was the fundamental argument over Kansas and Nebraska, and that "solution" was being pushed as a "compromise". This argument in favor of DRM sounds every bit as disingenous as that so-called compromise over slavery.
And the US is on the bad side. W's government sure ain't the government of Abraham Lincoln.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Since when did "anti-DRM" start meaning "pirate?"
LAME.
And they start to DRM it too .... Aw, wait .... Nevermind
Why you think that they would stop at basic needs is a mistery to me. We have to fight the wrong things even in the most insignificant levels (entertainment, for instance) because, if not, once we accept it there, we have no moral grounds to fight it where it really matters.
This hole topic is just not a problem. If you don't like big corporations using DRM to violate your rights (the way you percive them) then don't use their services
This works in theory and practice with itunes: You still can buy in other online music stores or even buy the CD
It's very different in the case of DVD, though. Because the companies who make movies are the same companies who control the "electronics" market, consumers didn't have a choice, they were imposed what format they should use, like if they were living on Russia when Communism was still there. I just don't understand why companies are allowed to be big enought that they control EVERYTHING on a given market. It's like the companies who make petrol would also make cars and would make their petrol compatible only with their engines, and if other company tried to build a car compatible with their petrol would get sued. IMO this is anti-liberal and goes against capitalism. Should people be allowed to create big enterprises that create jobs? Hell, yes. Should those companies be allowed to control the market and lock out competitors? Hell, NO.
Remember that the ONE reason why you can see DVD in Linux is because someone broke the DRM protection. In the case of Itunes, it's clear that its DRM isn't dangerous, since you can buy other players and use other music stores. But if itunes would got 99% of the online music market, it WOULD be a problem. So DRM can be both good and bad - it's up to the government to make laws to stop it from being bad.
Yeah, in that binding contract that was only presented to you after you shelled out your money for the product, which is by the way, non-returnable by any means.
Your argument "DRM doesn't interfere with fair use is, because non-drm'd media is not affected." is complete BS. DRM interferes with fair use on the object to which it was applied, the only way your logic would work is if there was a secondary choice of equal value/options available to which DRM was not applied. Your argument is like saying, these apples taste JUST like these oranges, and as such cease to be apples.
Assuming that their license equals a contract--if a government declares that the terms of the "contract" are invalid because they violate consumer rights, then BLAM, contract IS invalid.
But don't look to the US government to watch out for its citizens like that.
Sure, because DRM never interfered with fair use, or anything... and all countries have the exact same copyright laws as the US.
What's stopping you from doing analog recording off the headphone jack to get your fair use? Or using a microphone if they eventually manage to close the "analog hole"? Fair use isn't the same as "convenient, unadulterated, pristine copies that preserve track info."
To throw your own argument back in your face - since when is artifically limiting my ability to use something I bought as I see fit a "right" of some company?
High performance cars artificially limit your top speed. Heck, 50cc scooters in some markets do this. There are workarounds.
But a more pressing example is how food is genetically modified so that the seeds of the produce you buy are infertile, so you can't plant those seeds and grow your own. Recently, I saw a bamboo tree for sale at a garden center with a warning that said that copyright law made it illegal to make offspring of the plant (however that is done with bamboo?). It makes me wonder why there is so much debate about mere entertainment.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
This isn't in the iTunes license, but rather in the customer agreement to create an iTunes Store account. iTunes is fully functional without the ability to purchase music from the iTunes Store; it's not like Apple requires you to get an iTunes Store account... well, unless you want free tracks from them, or want to buy something from them. But that's definitely not a shrink-wrap or click-wrap deal.
Of course, all this is irrelevant because it ignores the fact that the French law was a bad law anyway, because what it really ought to be doing is outlawing the DRM in the first place!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Excessive government interference can deter innovation and encourage rival companies to "devote their resources to legal challenges rather than business innovation," he (Barnett) added.
Exactly. When the DMCA was passed, it open a floodgate of lawsuits by the recorded music manufacturing industry against its own consumers. This consumed valuable resources, and stifled the market's ability to force the recorded music vendors to innovate and come up with new products that their consumers wanted to buy.
I can't find any fault with this statement of his.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Without iTunes DRM, the major music companies wouldn't allow Apple to sell music in the iTunes store. Same holds true for other online music sales sites (think of the ones that the RIAA is okay with). If you get rid of the iTunes DRM, we'd all still be paying for an entire CD instead of just the songs we want to listen to.
Some of you will claim that the solution is to purchase non-RIAA music, which is fine. There are some RIAA bands I enjoy, however, so for me that's not a solution. Obviously in the case of iTunes, DRM is actually helping consumers. It may not allow us to do everything we want, but it gives us one additional choice in how we get our music.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
When you agreed to their license, which was a binding legal contract.
Are you sure that applies throughout the EU?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I hope they cc all the Music and Movie executives on that memo.
Paint yourself into a corner, burn the bridges!, and you will feel the liberty of a man who has nothing to lose!
Well, since corporations started to be able to heavily influence politics for their needs.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Hey, you can't put a CD in a VCR, is that infringing on your ability to use the material as you see fit.
>>Getting 300 million people to agree is impossible. Hell, even getting a million people to agree on something is quite difficult
How many Indians boycotted English cotton?
I think the whole ipod fad is insane, I'll stick with mp3s.
Let me throw it back in your face - since when is it your right to use someone else's creation in violation of the terms to which they agreed to sell it to you?
How exactly does government support of monopolies of proprietary, encrypted information formats encourage innovation?
From the nature of DRM, you cannot compete directly, by creating compatible products, especially when DMCA type laws attempt to make such competition illegal.
Also, by the nature of current DRM, there is no expiration, so this leads to infinite copyrights, which ultimately lead to less inovation, and more disposible information/data/discoveries/art.
DRM, if mandated by the US Government violates the "limited time" nature of information monopolies allowed by the Constitution.
If anything ever needed to be tagged as absurd.
Car analogies. They need to go, ok? We definitely need a car-analogy equivalent of Godwin's law.
Apple created Itunes and Ipod to work with each other, and people KNOWING THIS agreed to buy them. Property rights are causal. The reason corporations/peopel create things is because they can control them/profit from them. If they could not control/profit from them, the creation would have been nonexistent or greatly diminished.
Don't be so obtuse. These kinds of anti-intellectual property rights arguments so often come from those who create nothing.
But is it going to far when you say those itunes you bought can only be played in pristine quality on an ipod? What if you opt for the zune? or if you change to a oss os? Would you want to leave your itunes behind and say "oh well, I'm not allowed to listen to those anymore"?
That doesn't make any sense, plus once people buy $500 of ipod only tunes they are unlikely to want to change to a new service, aiding market domination and lack of choice.
I fear the Y2038 bug
Never. But pirates are anti-DRM. And those who oppose DRM without suggesting an alternative to protect the copyright owner's rights are favoring a legal position that makes things easier on pirates than copyright owners.
That doesn't make you a pirate. If all you want to do is play your music on alternative devices, make backups, post snippets for review, etc. then you're entirely within your legal rights. But currently, the technologies that allow you to do that also enable wholesale trading of music in violation of copyright.
If you've got a solution that allows fair use without allowing unfair use, we'd love to hear it. Meantime, there's going to be a conflict between the two sets of rights. Currently that's one you lose, since they're the ones with the music to sell, and so they set the terms of the sale. I'd happily see that turned around.
You really are a moron, jester. What's unbelievable is that you are allowed out in public. Everything he said is true, and you know it. You're just mad that you didn't get the karma points. If you don't like not being allowed to play an itunes track on a creative zen, then don't freakin buy it. the DRM on itunes tracks is not too bad, and before you retort, remember that the users responsible for the 1,000,000,000+ downloads from itms can't all be wrong. And what is this crap you are posting about "Economic Hit men"? The story is regarding Intellectual property, not airports in 3rd world countries. If you hate the USA so much, just LEAVE. Then we can have our slashdot back.
Wrong. Why? Because copyright/patents are a different beast than other products. By this, I mean that you can't simply go to another company and buy a good substitute without the license in most cases because it's not legally possible for other companies to compete (they can't copy the product itself because of copyright). It's not a matter of companies that don't exist because it's not economically feasible. It's a matter of companies that don't exist because it's illegal. It's because of this that the "First Sale Doctrine" was conceived which clarified that you couldn't sign away your rights to do various things, including resell a copy of a work.
Wrong, again. Under the DMCA, you need specific permission to circumvent DRM for a coyrighted work unless it falls under a very narrow scope (interoperability and fair use the two main supposed ones). Even then, distributing tools that *allow* you to circumvent DRM under those narrow exceptions is illegal. Given that it's possible for me to break a DRM scheme without ever agreeing to any license*, it can hardly be said that it's the license that's harming one's rights. Clearly it's laws like the DMCA that extend copyright to third parties.
*Think no fruther than creating a DRM scheme under the BSD, releasing it, and also creating a tool to break said DRM. Now, if someone else takes the same DRM scheme and uses it, release of the tool to break said DRM becomes illegal the second a 3rd party copyrighted work is released under the scheme. Of course, IANAL, but that's at least one simple way I can imagine where I never agreed to any license and I'm still being subjected to the choices of other people to use DRM.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
There... fixed that for ya.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
The USG is telling other governments what their rules on DRM and copyright ought to be, while their citizens of other countries have told their governments something else entirely. Do those governments (and, at least in theory, their citizens) have the right to determine what is sold in their countries, and if not, who should have that right?
The US does not allow drugs to be sold, nor does it allow contracts of various sorts (indentured servitude, for example), even if the parties consent to them. Should these laws be negated - if people do not wish to enter such contracts, they don't have to, right? Or does the power to choose what products should be sold and how rest solely with those in power in the US?
Of course their constituents are big business, not you nor I.
I apologize if you were being sarcastic. Comments such as yours are so wrong that I have to believe you are being sarcastic. Have you ever actually met a real artist? My sister is one of them. I buy her lots of supplies and canvases because she is a truly talented painter. She produces incredible stuff and has no desire to sell any of it. We have an artwalk here in Scottsdale every thursday night where artists show off their work. Some make a little money to recover their costs but very very very few of them are doing it make a lot of money.
I have friend who is an actor. He makes pretty decent money at it but he also does plays for free because he enjoys it. Considering all the free theaters in this city which is not even known for it's theater I wonder how much you see this in NYC? There are those that make money at it but don't fool yourself into thinking they are the majority. Look at all the people in high school who started bands in addition to their day jobs. I know lots and lots.
Maybe I'm the one who's way off. That's entirely possible. So far I've worked with a record label called BigHeavyWorld which is a non-profit record label and it is not the only of its kind. The money they make recoups their costs and the rest if any goes to charity. They also offer their music online for free albeit a limited selection designed to encourage people to buy their CDs. It works and no DRM is required.
There's always a tension between, "should be let our benevolent governement set policy" and "should bee let industry trade groups find their own compromises". IN general usually the scheme is for the govt to threaten to take action is the trade groups dont stop acting like assholes. Then the tradegroups set up a workable policy. This happens almost daily and works very well for the most part. In some case it becomes an object of public ridicule but even then it's usually better than govt intervention. (for example, the voluntary rating systems on movies, and music are both laughable and yet fairly workable and certainly better than govt action).
So here's a case where it is not all happening in the confines of the US so the US is trying to advocate that less govt intervention is good as long as the industry seems to be making it work well.
What matters here is how hard the public complains. If they don't complain then the US has every right to believe that what apple is doing is a good compomise. If they do complain then they will push for some regulation.
That's of course the answer devoid of the cynical belief that corrupt politicians are pushing this for their coroporate masters. If you believe that then, sure, be skeptical. If you give them the benefit of the doubt then I'd say its not a bad thing to push for.
In the end what the US says is not law. They are advocating for restraint. Others can judge if it's warrnated inthe context of their nations.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Really? And here I thought it just represented some government's that are *shock* looking out for their constituents right! THE HORROR!
Ummm.... Well doesn't that mean this is bad government in action.
For one Apple isn't their constituent and secondly DRM is not in the interest of the average American's list of problems or needs.
If corporations could vote at the ballot box, then I'd say it would be different.
As it is, they can only "vote" with their money.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Umm, Net Neutrality is a _GOOD_ thing. Something we've long had and that has been removed recently!
It's that we're missing it that's the problem, Mr. Stevens!
Captcha: tubers (You can't make this stuff up.)
Greetings,
This hole topic is just not a problem. If you don't like big corporations using DRM to violate your rights (the way you percive them) then don't use their services. It's not like we're talking food or other essential stuff, just ignore their offering and they'll learn by themself. Any other behaviour either encourages them or weakens your standpoint.
You may not believe this, but the whole reason this BS piracy thing came to a head had nothing to do with people actually pirating stuff. Instead it had everything to do with people getting fed up with the crappy artists, and way overpriced albums. These people tried to do exactly what you suggest, they let their wallets do the talking. The RIAA couldn't admit this to their share holders, without admitting that they were involved in an organized price fixing scheme. Don't believe me, take a real close look at their financials in the late 90's and 2000 - 2001. Specifically look at price per album and profit per album numbers. Will give you a hint here... According to Sony's fincacials, the price per CD went from $12.00 per album to $20.00 between 1997 and 1999, while the price of production per CD dropped from $4.00 to $0.95 in that same time period. Their total annual CD sales dropped a whole 15% from 1997 to 2001, with 1998 being their biggest fall of 8%. Check the numbers, you will be surprised.
While you are at it, you might want to look at Apple's sales reports since iTunes launched. In there you will learn quite a few interesting numbers which help give lie to the RIAA's BS.
Right, because it's the RIAA who's making all this music. Here I thought it was the musicians. Silly me.
That is a sad, tired argument - and all you can hope with it is the 'repeat it until people believe it' strategy. 'Intelectual property' rights are granted by the state for a limited period of time to encourage creation. In return for this protection, when the time expires the protected content should fall back into public domain so that the state (as in 'society at large') can benefit from them (you know, cross-polination type, or as some say 'standing on the soulders of giants'). DRM prevents that, as it does not have a built-in 'expiry date', effectively preventing the society from receiving any real benefits from allowing DRM. And don't give me that 'no DRM, no creation' crap - culture started well before DRM and Gutenberg's press did not ruin it at all, quite the contrary.
I say that even in the hugely improbable case that the RIAA members go banckrupt from lack of DRM (although the fact that they didn't already should clue one in) - bring it on! It should lower the market access price for many producers of good music (aka artists) that nowadays have to go indie.
The Gospel according to lolcat
You mean technologies like LPs, CDs and tapes?
I'm not following you entirely here, though it's probably my fault. There are plenty of companies that sell non-DRM media, most come in the form of CD stores. I'm guessing you mean taking the file and moving it to another device. My response would be that falls under the further problem of laws that enforce DRM as a legal solution to something that should remain firmly in the technological world. If I agree to a license that restricts my rights, then that's my problem; but if the government makes it their problem, I'd agree, we have an issue.
I should have been more specific. The legal entanglements of license agreements as well as bodies of law like the DMCA is a problem, but in this case I don't find the two issues linked. If it wasn't enforced by law then it would be enforced by some measure of contract; if it wasn't via giving up certain fair use rights, it would be via agreements that indirectly and further extended the domain of the contract. But as for your main point, I agree.
I love going to battle against DRM and fighting for Fair Use and even against the concept of IP and copywrites. However, even if the battle is lost, and the corporations win, and those old farts get their old idea, that information gets them money, backed by government enforement, the consumers will still get to decide in the end and ultimately come out victorious. That's why the GPL came to life, to counteract Copyrights with Copylefts. Don't like that someone is trying to legally prevent you from re-using their program or picture or (information) in a way you see fit? Go someplace else where you have that freedom, like the open source community. I don't want consumers to have to do that, but I think that's where the majority of consumers will head to when the government comes knocking to collect "copywrite infringement funds" for monopolies.
Small example: Look at newspaper comics. Penny Arcade was attacked by the old farts who make some of the comics in newspapers because the Internet has broken down their ability to make as much money as they once did. The Internet is about sharing information, so any market system which heavily depends upon the creation of information is threatened, so they go screaming to the government for help. This has happened many times before in history. Eventually those markets either dissolve or adapt. Hopefully it will happen with this, too, as long as the government isn't successful (and it's impossible to be in this case) in forcing the old market to exist, and by doing so "discourage innovation and hurt consumers". :)
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
Without DRM, there would still be a market to sell music online.
If RIAA, did not want to profit from this, there would be many that would.
The younger generation would buy/download online, not get CD's, whether or not the RIAA was selling.
Eventually the RIAA would sell online without DRM like everyone else.
DRM allows the RIAA to keep the old disposible media model (LP-8Track-Cassette-CD), where the consumers keep re-purchasing the same media. Consumers being able to have a "permanent" copy is scary to the RIAA. Copyright extensions and public domain are scary for the same reason. It would force new art/invention/innovation to get profit.
DRM, DMCA, and infinite copyright law are fighting agaist the "printing press like", which is free internet information exchange. No, "free information exchange" does not mean anarchy. There should be regulation that encourages innovation. But 120 year copyrights, and encrypting all information for sale is attempting to reverse free information exchange, and "kill the printing press".
links to great contents, free for personal use... screw the whole stupid industry!
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
And why should the company to have any rights to impose additional restrictions?
Suppose you look at copyright law as a sort of default contract. I agree to sell you a copy; you agree not to redistribute that copy, but can use it in any way that is not forbidden. If I want to impose additional restrictions, why should I get any of the benefits of copyright law? If I'm not going to allow you to do the things which copyright law allows you to, why should I get any protections? I could write a contract instead. But, then if you broke the contract I wouldn't get state protection, or statutory damages, or the like.
Copyright should be a two-way street. It should provide benefits for both the producer and the consumer. The way it works at the moment, though, the producer gets all the benefits. If Apple wants to have iTunes content protected by copyright, they shouldn't seek any limitations on end user rights. If they want to impose a separate, more restrictive contract, they should forego any rights under copyright law. It's not fair to try to have it both ways.
Have you ever thought about burning a CD of it??? and then re-ripping it? The horror!
This is Apple's entire business model. When you purchase anything at all from Apple it's designed to work only on other Apple products to ensure quality. It's your decision to purchase music from other sites that don't DRM (ex, http://www.emusic.com/) for other media players. If you buy music from I tunes, expect it to only play on your I pod. I don't understand why people still fuss over this stuff. Now quit bitching like you didn't know about the DRM (and if you didn't, it's your own fault for not informing yourself). Be responsible for your own actions.
I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft.
I would just like to point out that every one of you who go and put money in Apple's pocket buying their tainted songs just puts that much more ammunition in the guns of the RIAA and their likes.
You buy a PS2 specific game. You're unlikely to change to an X Box for your game library. Should you then be entitled through "choice" to get said game for X Box?
I've invested upwards of $10,000 in a Canon digital SLR and associated accessories (the most expensive of which being lenses, at up to and over $2,000 apiece). These accessories only work with Canon cameras. But the lens is a lens, no more. Can I carry on down this slope and be entitled that that equipment also work with a Nikon camera, in the name of choice?
But is it going to far when you say those itunes you bought can only be played in pristine quality on an ipod? What if you opt for the zune? or if you change to a oss os? Would you want to leave your itunes behind and say "oh well, I'm not allowed to listen to those anymore"?
I'm not convinced that listening to music in its original pristine quality is an inalienable right. When lps were king, as soon as you started listening to the music you bought, its quality started to degrade due to scratches and general groove wear due to mechanical contact. And you couldn't just bring the record back to the store and get a replacement. The quality was about as good as you treated your collection. And if you wanted to back it up, you'd copy to cassette (or reel-to-reel, like my grandpa used to do with all his jazz and polka records) with significantly reduced quality. That analog duplication may be the only way to backup my music collection is now an infringement on my rights? It certainly wasn't 30 years ago. It's when they start to outlaw or heavily regulate the sale of microphones that I'll be worried.
That doesn't make any sense, plus once people buy $500 of ipod only tunes they are unlikely to want to change to a new service, aiding market domination and lack of choice.
Market dominance is certainly an issue. I think it's encouraging that so early in the development of legal downloads that there are at least 3 different major music download platforms: iTunes, playsForSure, and straight mp3. Again, moving between these services may not be convenient or "lossless", but it's possible and, I believe, still legal.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
Silly you indeed, for wilfully, and disingenuously, choosing to ignore the fact that said musicians voluntarily assigned their rights to said creations to the recording companies and their assigned representatives.
No, I'm not talking about either of those, really. The discussion is focused on the argument that one agrees to the license and hence is bound to it. But any license is predicated on the assumption that aren't being artificially restricted in your ability to make choices. This, however, is not the case. If product X exists in a market place without artificial restriction and you don't like the terms of buying product X, you have three main alternatives. If there already exists in the market place a product Y that's identical to product X minus the terms you dislike (ie, product Y is a perfect substitute), you can simply buy product Y. If there exists no substitute for product X in the market place with terms that are not nefarious, in your view, then you can always make your own product Z for your own consumption. Finally, there's always the option to simply buy nothing even if product Y exists or you have the funds to produce product Z.
In the artificial market of copyright, the situation changes pretty drastically. For one, there is no longer a product Y. At best, there's product X', made by the same company possibly under different terms, but in the end still indirectly funds product X and those nefarious terms you're against. Further, you can't make a product Y. You can try your best to clone product X, but in the end, it will invariably not being a perfect substitute of product X; you will only be able to make a good substitute, and good might not be good enough (look at WINE for an example). So, you're really only left with two choices: buy product X with the nefarious terms or buy nothing at all. This is, by definition, a monopoly. Further, it's a monopoly created wholly by the government. This is what I mean by companies not existing to compete because they're illegal.
It's this situation which is the primary reasons that the "exclusive right(s)" of authors have been repeatedly challenged and overturned in courts as authors (and more usually, their publishers) have tried to further distort what limited grants they've been given into monopolistic grants that know no end. It's why First Sale Doctrine overrides license agreements that would restrict specific exclusive rights listed under copyright, like fair use. In the end, it's why it's hard for me to understand how someone can be Libertarian and at the same time support copyright. While property rights are also an artificial construct, at least they cover a finite good where it can be claimed that some innate property of existance forces there to be no perfect substitutes for things like land.
In any case, with law being written to erode First Sale Doctrine (among other things), I'm not sure if the courts will still support an attempt to balance copyright and the market place. I can only hope so, as it doesn't seem Congress is at all interested in protecting the rights of people in such matters.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Why? Is this one of those magical pieces of 'common sense / reasonable assumption'? I buy music on my PC, why wouldn't I be able to play it where I wished? iTunes Music Store it is called, so I can assume said music works on iTunes, fine. But it's only when you delve deeper that you find restrictions.
Should you delve deeper? Of course.
But don't go on your "well, of course! EVERYONE knows this! And they tried to pretend they didn't! Now they're crying!" because it's just silly.
But is it going to far when you say those itunes you bought can only be played in pristine quality on an ipod? What if you opt for the zune? or if you change to a oss os? Would you want to leave your itunes behind and say "oh well, I'm not allowed to listen to those anymore"?
:
.
Well, there's a difference between inconvenient and illegal
When you (legally) burn your DRM-protected AAC-tracks to an Audio-CD (from within iTunes) they are converted (without loss) to AIFF-files. Still "pristine" (i.e.: there is no further degradation from the original compression). You can now (legally) convert the AIFF-file to any other (lossless) audio-format, whatever yor player (Zune or what have you) supports. Sure, it's a shlepp, but you're absolutely allowed to do this.
Now compare this to ripping a DVD: You could do something similar, but that would actually be illegal
So (to reiterate): it's not true that you're "not allowed to listen to those [songs anywhere else]" . It's inconvenient, but not illegal.
sig? Oh, that sig...
I think you guys are missing the whole issue here.
Whatever your feelings on DRM (I personally won't buy anything DRM'd but do own an iPod; I use my CD collection) the regulation goverments are trying to do against Apple isn't whether they should or shouldn't have DRM, but rather whether or not they have to open the iTunes Store to competitors. The DRM would still be on every song.
So now that we are on the same page for whats going on and in Slashdot tradition, I am going to share my unasked for opinion on this subject.
Government to Apple: Hey apple, we know you put a ton of time and money into creating a fully integrated music/media solution for your users and were the first to really get consumers behind you...well how to put this, the other companies, nobody really wants to buy their stuff cause there are no integrated solutions for it. So do you think you could open up your online store and let everyone and their dog connect to it? We realize that this would lose you sales on your hardware which is where you make most (if not all) of your money. We also realize that when joe schmoe can't get his [insert brand] mp3 player to easily work with the store and automatically add purchased media to the mp3 player he is going to call you, despite that fact that you have nothing to do with the support of his mp3 player, thereby costing you more time and money in support. Further we understand that this will affect your image of "just works" because grandma will associate the hassle of getting her music she purchased through your store onto her [insert-brand] thereby causing damage to your image. So Apple, what do you think...you don't mind do you?
Apple to gov: Umm...how about no...
To me it just seems like the other companies (the ones too lazy to try to create their own fully integrated solution) are just trying to regulate their biggest competitor out of the business. What company would want to innovate like this in the future if they then have to open up everything they did to their competitors. It would be much easier to wait for the next guy to innovate and then force them to open up. Hence, resulting in further lack of consumer choice. And remember, if you don't like the choice, you don't have to take it (remember this isn't about DRM being there or not, the goverments aren't proposing getting rid of DRM).
Just my 2c (or 2p for you Euro guys).
If the government has the right to stop DRM, then they also have the right to impose it. It isn't worth it. Next thing you know, Trusted Computing will be a legal mandate.
I didn't know businesses could vote...
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Funny, DRM doesn't stop wholesale infringement. It never will - if the content can be seen or heard, it can be copied and distributed. It's worse than useless, since treating all customers as thieves = bad for business.
Here's a suggestion anyway: Offer quality content.
That includes good music, but other things as well - fantastic package art, fanclub memberships, entries in contests, points that could be redeemed for concerts, concert tickets themselves, ringtones, apparel, books, and things of that nature. Make the media more than the audio recording, and people will buy it.
Crippling the audio recording only penalizes those who stay legit. Those who cheat bareley even notice it.
"The U.S. Justice Department's antitrust chief Thomas Barnett cited recent foreign proposals to impose restrictions on Apple's iTunes service as an example of strict regulation which could discourage innovation and hurt consumers." America will be able to say this, without the rest of the world laughing their ass's off when/if they overhaul the US patent system
I'm in support of it too. Amazingly, its enough to keep the RIAA happy. But its not enough to keep me from getting my music in a format I want. Go pick up a CD-R and you can convert it however you like.
Of course I don't buy iTunes music, I use allofMP3, so this doesn't apply to me. Yes, it would be better if the music were not hindered at all, but is that really going to happen? Not in my lifetime. If they're happy with it, and I can still get what I want, it is acceptable.
And I for one am sick of it. Anytime DRM comes up, no matter what company, people complain about it, as they rightfully should. The one exception is Apple. I hate when Apple fanbois claim Apple's version is "DRM done right". DRM can NEVER be done right, it is draconian in all its forms.
You, a person foolishly representing the interests of the non free music industry, have to tell me why I should pass laws protecting your crappy little Digital Restrictions Management program from people who would circumvent it. Your anti-circumvention laws are not something written into any contract I ever signed and are a tremendous abuse of copyright law which goes well beyond any reasonable interpretation of the copyright establishment clause. It was government missallocation of broadcast spectrum that created the big music companies, not a free market. They will die in a free market and should not be protected by laws that destroy my freedom to do what I will with bits on my computer. Those laws cost money and I don't want to pay it.
That the market will vanquish DRM is not a good enough reason to legally protect it. Sure, I'm avoiding DRM'd music like most people are. The vast majority of people's music is still DRM free, despite the current "success" of the iTunes music store. Companies that sell non DRM'd music will continue to prevail and the non free formats will fizzle and die like DRM'd ebooks have. So tell me again why any country should pass and enforce laws to protect something no one wants that will soon die? Corporate welfare? No thanks.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Is this the same "antitrust chief" that killed U.S. vs Microsoft when the Bush administration came into power?
http://outcampaign.org/
When its apple. DRM is only bad when other people do it.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
If they were silly enough to do that, they'd hand over the entire PC industry to the $125 Chinese computer practically overnight. Who'd buy a PC that was restricted like that? The whole point of them is freedom to do what you like. You might as well just give up and buy an appliance instead.
And sillier you for wilfully and disingenuously choosing to ignore that its only "voluntary" on paper.
If said musicians are being exploited by a bullshit system that is predicated on the notion of removing ownership of the art from the artist, then I really dont give a flying fuck how "voluntary" the contract says its, its not. If its the only choice, its not a choice. In order to *actually* be a rock star, you have to sign with a major label.
The RIAA can shove their whole business model up whatever orifice is the least comfortable.
I see the artists i like in concert whenever possible. you know, supporting Artists and businesses that facilitate bringing me live music, instead of Suits and businesses that bring me rootkits and lawsuits.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
Since when is it a creator's (and what an abused term that is for the deriviative pap we're discussing) right to limit every citizen's abiity to distribute information to preserve one version of a business model for an extremely low-priorty 'product', as their distributors now call it? One of the content distribution industy's greatest victories in the modern debate over copyright and DRM is to structure the discussion in such a way to completely shut out the greater effect on everyone and limit it to 'our rights' and 'our property', 'our' refering to a tiny minority and for the most part a rich, known minority interested preserving a market over being heard. Why on this green earth should some asshole in American Hollywood, who's 'product' I revile, determine how this Canadian uses a computer, the most general and powerful machine in the history of mankind, now being shoe-horned into the role of 'media centre' to preserve their livelihood? Wake. Up.
the same corporate mouth piece that asked a foriegn govt to act on the pirate bay? that was a piece of advice worth listening too from what i saw of the fallout. i certainly hope that the govts of the world noticed and decide that maybe this DRM being pushed on their citizens should be investigated before it gets even further out of hand. already we have region specific players and media (thankfully ruled anti-competetive and therefore illegal in my country). how long until sony CDs and DVDS can only be played on sony players?
You shall know him by his Sig
So according to the US government Apple is allowed to monopolize portable music players but Microsoft is not allowed to monopolize PCs?
Clearly Microsoft is not paying off as many politicians and regulators as Apple is. MS should seriously object to this crap.
In analogy, why isn't apple being prosecuted for bundling Safari with OSX. AFAIK IE does not run on OSX... the horror!
They sure as heck can donate. And that's worth many votes.
Moderation -2
100% Offtopic
"article about the export of high-tech equipment to China's security forces, and the dilemma that it creates"
vs
"Bush is giving nuke tech to India"
TrollMods want foreign militaries to have "fair and balanced" access to American military technology.
--
make install -not war
I have been using iTunes since its inception, and have just signed up for an account to download album art. I have never purchased anything, but use iTunes to burn CDs that I purchase -- fair use -- without any restrictions. I get access to music not available online, and have higher bit rates!
Apple is the least restrictive DRM, and I don't doubt for a minute that they have fought a pretty tough battle against labels wishing for the most draconian of rights.
Why do DRM shills always bring out this same tired-ass argument? It's bad enough that I'm already buying a highly compressed AAC file, now I'm supposed to jump thru hoops to burn and re-encode it, to get an even lower quality version? I guess only ipod owners are "allowed" to have the best quality ITMS content, the rest of us should settle for second-best.
I paid for the fucking file, I should be able to play it on any damn device I want, with a few hassles as technologically feasible.
Come off it. That's a damn joke. I know there is a whole world of wrong that record labels do to musicians, but to bitch and moan because /their/ route to your "rock stardom" comes at a high price...
"I have to be a musician! It's who I was born to be! And not only that, I have to be a household name, a world famous musician!"
Billy Joel said it best, talking about musicians who made it to the top, on international fame and how "they didn't want to be worldwide stars and celebrities": "No-one made you sign the deal. You were musicians beforehand. You're making money, sometimes big money - you're not /owed/ millions by the world. Experiencing things most people could only dream of. Enjoy it. Shut the fuck up."
If one were to make a lens interoperability kit, would that be illegal? If one were to make a DRM-breaking format convertor, that is illegal. I'm not sure about writing a PS2 emulator for the XBox (disregarding obvious technical limitations).
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
I think you missed the part about how if they don't become "Rock Stars" within the set amount of time, the chip in their brain explodes.
It's a voluntary deal. If they don't want to sign on to Big Music's terms, they can either go on an independent label, or self-publish (which, in some ways, is much easier in the Internet world). If the countless stories of major-label screw-jobs I'm constantly hearing are any indication, it's probably even a better proposition.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Let me throw it back in your face - since when is it your right to use someone else's creation in violation of the terms to which they agreed to sell it to you?
And then, complaining about it on top of everything! I don't know why people act like they are being oppressed or something.
Apple's iTunes store and DRM are well-implemented, but where exactly is the innovation? And what innovation is exactly hindered by forcing companies to open up DRM to competitors?
It's ironic that this sort of thing comes from a US judge, given how often the US has been up in arms about trade barriers in the European telekom business. I wonder whether the US judge would have the same opinion if it were a French company that was the worldwide market leader and that was keeping Apple and Microsoft out of the market.
Sorry, no contract is legally binding if you're not allowed to read it before purchasing.
At least one federal court disagrees.
Developers: We can use your help.
Shrink-wrap licenses are not contracts.
Call them what you will but they are enforceable.
Developers: We can use your help.
.... that the US governments' constituents are multinational coporations. Specially the ones with near monopoloic positions.
And to think this comes form the guy in charge of keeping an eye on the monopolies...
What s shambles...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Considering how the USA has basically renegged on NAFTA over the endless lumber spat with Canada, the USA has zero credibility when it comes to lecturing others on how they conduct their business.
It seems as though the consideration would be the acceptance of your offer to buy their DRM protected media. In addition, couldn't your continued use of the product be considered "agreement" because of your "performance" (in useing said media). Though of course IANAL - I quit lawschool :)
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
>> "To me it just seems like the other companies (the >> ones too lazy to try to create their own fully integrated >> solution) are just trying to regulate their biggest >> competitor out of the business." Seems someone outta pass a Dog-Eat-Dog law for the betterment of all businesses everywhere. Who cares if Atlas shrugs? It probably wasn't *that* heavy in the first place! Oh, and the other companies aren't lazy. They're just a wee bit slow and dim witted. I think its unfair to call them lazy just because they can't cogitate their way out of a wet paper opportunity. I will grant you however that it may well be the excessive Ho Ho's.
As it is, they can only "vote" with their money.
well, in the US government, it would seem that a $1000 bill holds more influence than a ballot, especially if both of the names on the ballot are equally interested in "campaign contributions" for the next election.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I personally buy all my music on CD. It's the best deal out there: I'm basically guaranteed that I'll be able to play the CD or play compressed versions of its tracks on a device of my choosing for a long, long time. I don't get that with a DRM scheme. DRM is a bad deal for me, so I won't buy it.
One problem is that the prevalence of CDs forces the record companies to put a lot of trust in their customers not to rip them off. Trust that the customers, frankly, haven't earned. But there's another problem. Buying from, say, iTMS involves the customer putting a lot of trust in Apple. They have to trust that Apple will continue to let them play their tunes. But Apple could be marginalized in the market, and stop releasing iPods and iTunes because they're not profitable. They could even go out of business altogether. Then when the next big OS comes around and breaks compatibility with Apple's previous-gen products, all their users are stuck with either an old OS or a library of useless encrypted tunes. And I tend to think that, more likely than not, eventually Apple will for some reason find it more expensive than it's worth to support every last tune ever downloaded on the latest platforms. Even if playback of the songs remains possible for a long time, market dominance of DRM formats is likely to change many times in the future, meaning that you'd be at some times struggling to find devices to play your old tunes or tunes that work on your old device.
I know a lot of people are happy with iTunes or whatever now, but they haven't had to live with it for very long. The music business knows it can't trust its customers but the customers don't know just how much they can't trust the providers. They're blinded by how well it works in the short term. The customer and seller have equal power in the transaction, but the sellers are getting together and speaking with a unified voice. The customers are scattering around like fools. And we'll be forced to trust the media companies forever because of it, because I do not believe there will ever be a solution that forces neither side to trust the other.
Good thing that the $1000 bill has been out of print for decades.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
2p? You think we are British or something? Heaven forbid... No, we got cents just like the rest of ... the USA. Our civilization is developing nice and slowly towards higher standards now.
Because "I see fit" includes putting it out on file sharing sites. You're a crook.
*sigh*
clearly hyperbole is lost on some people
My point was that musicians dont have the option of retaining their intellectual property in the same way that say authors or painters do.
The recording house *owns* the music, not the artist.
Some people become rock stars, most dont.
Those that dont are royally fucked over
I happen to think that the system is fucked up, and you can see the inherrent nature of the exploitative impulse play out on the consumer when the RIAA goes off suing their consumers.
Yes, it was a damn joke. Parent was talking out of his ass, chastizing his comment's parent for rhetorical selectivity. I was criticizing him for doing the same and did the same myself. because talking like an ass is funny.
You clearly share that philosophy.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
So according to the US government Apple is allowed to monopolize portable music players but Microsoft is not allowed to monopolize PCs?
The US fed. gov. allows monopolies provided the result is in the public interest. MS was not prosecuted for being a monopoly, but for taking advantage of their monopolistic position to control the market and limit competition. Apple is not hunting down competition, they are winning in a free market fair and square. Free market does not require free-as-in-speech software.
Clearly Microsoft is not paying off as many politicians and regulators as Apple is.
You can't be serious. All those politicians already have iPods.
MS should seriously object to this crap.
And piss off even more all those politicians who already can't use their virus infected PCs?
In analogy, why isn't apple being prosecuted for bundling Safari with OSX. AFAIK IE does not run on OSX... the horror!
It was not so much the bundling as providing no easy way to uninstall IE, and claiming that Windows would break without IE. The only reason IE does not run on OSX is because Micrtosoft does not want it to.
The parent sounds as though it were wrtten by a high school student, and the logic is so flawed that I fear for my future. People like this will not be able to pay my social security.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
Sorry - people have a right to be able to choose the player they play their music on. They should be able to play that music on any player regardless of where it was purchased - anything less is a government mandated music player (or at the very least, government-approved, through inaction).
What YOU seem to be missing is that that's an unacceptable situation. That is why Apple is being scrutinized.
And no, they don't have to open up their innovations and let everyone else profit from them - that's why they license the FairPlay protocol so that other players can implement it. That would be the.. Fair.. thing to do.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Hehehe. You walked right into this one.
The producers don't get to make the terms of sale. Copyright law does that. They abide by that law, and its purpose, or they don't share their creation.
If they DO share their creation and they violate the terms THEY agreed to, it is your right to break the agreement too (meaning.. you no longer are obligated to abide by the copyright).
Lots of people won't like me saying that but it's true.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
People did not agree to buy them knowing about the vendor lock-in. In fact, STILL very few people at the moment are even aware of it.
That still doesn't make it right.
This coming from someone in a culture that believes money is the root of all creation and the only motivator to invent, produce, create or otherwise.
Lots of people create and invent because it gives their lives meaning, because they enjoy it, and by god because THEY WANT TO. You diminish that person everytime you say that unfortunate sentence.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
The U.S. has asked foreign governments to consider the effects of interfering with popular new technologies,
The USA should be more considerate of how the occupation of Iraq and the coming invasion and war with Iran
will effect the world...
From the classical to the modern era you could not write, publish, or perform without a powerful patron. The church. The state, The merchant prince. Shakespeare doesn't go to law. He passes the word along to someone in the Court of King James.
The infringer looks at his cards and folds.
It doesn't matter that Shakespeare borrows freely from others, what matters is that his patron stands closer to the King.
The public domain is no quarantee of creativity. The whining here is that movies and games have become nothing but sequels. Derivatives are safe, derivatives are easy.
We have had forty years of Star Trek. Show me something new.
In the end, it's why it's hard for me to understand how someone can be Libertarian and at the same time support copyright. While property rights are also an artificial construct, at least they cover a finite good where it can be claimed that some innate property of existance forces there to be no perfect substitutes for things like land.
Let me see if I can clarify the position of someone who can be considered Libertarian and also support copyright.
In the artificial market of copyright, the situation changes pretty drastically. For one, there is no longer a product Y. At best, there's product X', made by the same company possibly under different terms, but in the end still indirectly funds product X and those nefarious terms you're against. Further, you can't make a product Y. You can try your best to clone product X, but in the end, it will invariably not being a perfect substitute of product X; you will only be able to make a good substitute, and good might not be good enough (look at WINE for an example). So, you're really only left with two choices: buy product X with the nefarious terms or buy nothing at all. This is, by definition, a monopoly. Further, it's a monopoly created wholly by the government. This is what I mean by companies not existing to compete because they're illegal.
This isn't completely accurate. In the matter of writings, music, and visual art - the creater has a monopoly by the very virtue of creating a work. More specific, visual art peices, works of fiction, and complete songs. Non-fiction, diagrams, and various common musical constructs (notes, scales, bars, ect..) are treated as factual information that cannot be copyrighted.
While a reference work can be copyrighted, to prevent absolute plagerism, the factual information contained in the work is free for anyone to use. More than one person can write a book detailing the Civil War or how to split an atom. Quite often these works cite each other.
A song uses a combination of uncopyrightable elements to form something unique. The notes, scales, timing, and instruments used cannot be copyrighted.
A work of visual art uses elements that cannot be copyrighted. Colors, subject matter, and medium are not copyrightable. Artists often mimic or copy each others work as a matter of study. This is nothing new.
Copyright comes into play in books when the work is fiction. While the book itself is protected by copyright to prevent unauthorized reproduction - the characters and universe are protected by IP because they never would have existed in their exact state without being created by the author. This does not prevent people from writing stories set in similar fictional worlds. This does not prevent people from using similar story constructs or themes. What it does do is prevent me from writing a story set in a "star wars" like universe and labeling it a "Star Wars" story so I can cash in on the popularity of Star Wars. I am free to create fiction in this universe without the intent of generating a profit from it. Fan fiction is a big example of this.
Music only attempts to copyright the exact peice for purposes of sale. You can still play any work live without charge. You can also mimic or outright sample sections for your arangement. You cannot however, dupe a song by the virtue of its delivery vehicle and sell that copy.
Visual arts are by default a monopoly. Only one physical work exists at first. Copyright is extended to the reproduction of this work. Two people can paint the same building, fruit bowl, or person. They cannot set up a scanner and start selling the scanned artwork.
The unifying point across all three examples is creativity. When a person invokes their creative skills to manufacture the actual subject of a work, the creator is granted a larger set of rights. Essentially, they are granted the right to recognize or dismiss other works as being part of, or related to, their imaginary creation - within reason.
George Lucas can stop, or allow, peopl
It's interfering with format-shifting how, exactly?
If you have a genuine need to format-shift, do it like we do for LPs:
1) hook up your stereo-out or line-out to your 8-track recorder or whatever,
2) hit 'Play'
3) record.
Using this method (for example), your 50 minutes worth of music will be format-shifted in about 50 minutes.
Your fair use does not include converting DRMed music to MP3s at x30 the play rate, then putting those on Kazaa.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Let's say that I've come up with a fantastic Hydrogen engine. There are many other good hydrogen engines on the market (some developed before, some after), but mine is a little more elegant and easier to fit into a typical automobile shape. Now I sell a few of them, but not too many. Now lets say I come up with a revolutionary hydrogen wafer that is easy enough for the average consumer to insert into the tank and would let the average sedan travel 1600km (1000 miles for those in the US) on a single tank.
Now I price the wafer near cost, because my real aim is to sell motors. The combination of the two is enough to really accelerate the sales of my hydrogen automotive power plant. Suddenly the other guys making hydrogen engines are unable to compete with me. I've got the best engine and I'm the first one with a really good hydrogen fuel supply. I make a good profit, but I'm by no means gouging people to buy my stuff.
I solved the secret to a hydrogen powered vehicule. Everybody now wants a "GeoGeer" powered car. Why should the government tell me I have to share my trade secrets with the competition. Nothing is stopping them from going and developing their own method to do the same thing. It is called capitalism. Those who work hard and come up with the ideas get rewarded - heck sometimes it isn't even the best one that wins. That's life get used to it.
The big problem in Europe is that they are socialist and want to destroy the advantage that anyone over here has. You think if it was Nokia who was the first to market with the iPod/iTunes combination that the Scandanavian judicial system would be trying to break it open? I think not. It is really a case of sour grapes. If you can't compete, just drag them down.
That is from the ruling under part II. They treated this case as if it were a contract because the district court did.
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
There's a difference between records/tapes and DRM music files. For one thing, the industry standardized around records and tapes. I don't know what the story was with 8-tracks, I doubt they got too popular before failing, though. But the changes from one format to another were reasonably slow. The computing world changes very quickly, and these portable music players don't exactly have a reputation for longevity. And DRM'ed music is tied to computers, so choosing a DRM music format locks me into a particular range of computing platforms for any computer I want to listen on. Often DRM'ed music depends on one company that has to keep supporting you. But with records/tapes many companies built record players and tape players, many of those companies left the market or went under, and yet some still remain. In that sense, a DRM system like HDCP is much better for me than iTunes is. I can depend on at least some of the many companies making HDCP-compliant devices staying in the market for a while. I think that eventually we'll see a new music format based on this type of DRM that offers advantages over CDs compelling enough to make people buy. I'd consider using it, if I had confidence that it wouldn't leave me dry, and if CDs were dead.
That doesn't mean I think iTunes should be forced to change. It just means I'll never buy songs from it. Apple had an idea first and developed a nice product but I won't reward them because they're not giving me what I want. *That* is capitalism. Capitalism is people like me demanding with our dollars that we are able to take advantage of the technology that theoretically allows media to be more durable; if the technology theoretically allows this but we still have to constantly replace our media then what are we being offered that gives us a compelling reason to switch away from records and tapes?
Anyhow, I was just responding to parent of my original post about iTunes-style DRM in general. I agree with you for the most part about the European iTunes law, and I imagine we'd probably agree that most of the EU's lawsuits against Microsoft are ridiculous, and that security companies crying about Vista should quit their bitchin'.
Most manufacturers put a govener on your car to control your top speed. Most people don't complain about it because they never push their car to those limits.
Most people don't complain about drm because all they ever do is play the music on their ipod or whatever.
As with any product, if you don't like it, don't buy it.
No, they don't. The creator has a monopoly by the virtue of a system that grants copyright on creation. This is something that's only as new as the 1970s. Before that point, you had to actually register to obtain this monopoly.
Wrong. Plagarism is the act of misattributing an idea as if it were one's own. Copyright infringement is misusing too much or in an unacceptable way part or whole of a copyrighted work. You can commit plagarism on works that aren't copyrighted. The fact is, some reference works can be copyrighted because the artful arrangement of information can be considered a creative work and hence copyrightable. Obviously the phone book isn't artful and can't be copyrighted.
Depends on if the subject matter is itself copyrightable. One can't necessarily use an image of Mickey Mouse in your image because of copyright. As for artists being able to mimic or copy each other, flat out copying wouldn't be any more copyrightable than using a xerox machine. So, one is still stuck with each artist creating their own unique work with a unique monopoly/copyright.
Actually, fan fiction is probably classifyable as a derivative work. It is simply the cast that George Lucas and others aren't generally interested in fighting a court case that would piss off fans and undoubtedly not produce much of a positive change in profits. Of course, without a court case as a basis to guess on precident, it's all just speculation upon previous fair use rulings.
Actually, playing a work live could be considered a performance, and that entails paying money to the copyright holder. Further, samlping sections of a song and using them in your song is rather questionable, especially if you plan to copyright and sell such a song. One has to look no further than fan fiction to see this.
Visual arts aren't, by default, a monopoly. Once a physical work exists and is sold, the person who receives it could make copies of it and sell those. It's copyright that prevents this.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Everything negative about Apple is automatically moderated down, the effect is far stronger than negative comments about Linux even here on /..
Apple does a lot of good, they produce some cool technology, and the contribute greatly to free software development.
But in this case, they are the Microsoft of online music sale. The problem is the tying between the iTunes store, and the iPod, which stiffle competition. If you have a new device you can't enter the market because you can't access the larger seller, iTunes. And if you have a new store you can't enter the market because you can't access the majority of devices. This is similar as what Microsoft is doing when they bundle software products.
Microsoft are temporarily on the side of the angels here, when someone elses proprietary technology is the market leader, Microsoft is a proponent of open and interchangable solutions. This last until they themselves become dominant.
Oh, and "DRM is evil" isn't the issue here. "Using DRM to lock out competition is evil" is the issue.
No matter how many contracts you sign it is still not possible to agree to something which is against the law. If I sign a contract where (for instance) I have to give you my first born, then you still don't get rights to my first born, since that would be illegal. Hence I cannot legally agree to any illegal contract. Therefore the companies do not get any new rights even if they pput them in their contracts...
Anyone amused by it being the antitrust guy that's backing DRM? DRM is sort of a tool for becoming a monopoly (for instance, Apple has pretty much monopolized the mp3 player industry).
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
...Stan Ridgeway tracks.6 603/albref_14/mcatalog.shtml
http://music.allofmp3.com/mp3/Stan_Ridgway/group_
Mr. Keenan says it best.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
I think you're missing the whole issue here.
You're absolutely right that the government should not be telling Apple to do anything.
The problem here is that this is all about the government passing a new law to PROHIBIT other companies from doing their own work to offer their own competing players. And what is happening here is the government realizing that if they pass such a stupid anti-free market law, that THEY are exterminating free market competition in compatible hardware players. And this talk of forcing Apple to open the system to other hardware makers is a horribly misguided attempt to fix the problem the government suddenly realized they were creating.
I'm not sure if they have actually passed that law yet, and if they have passed it I don't know whether the so called Apple Amendment was included or dropped.
The correct solution is the free market solution. Not to force Apple to do anything, and not to prohibit competitors from doing their own work to design their own compatible competing players.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
You would have a valid point if the DMCA didn't prevent the circumvention of copy protection. Why does my fair use not include DRM'd music to MP3? I'm now restricted as to which formats and methods I can use? That doesn't sound like fair use to me at all.
My father has thousands of MP3s converted from his cds of which he also has thousands. He has no use for Kazaa and honestly now that I have XM I don't really either. The point is irrelevent however as trading DRM media is also possible and indeed routinely done especially on kazaa. That is a completely different discussion; the sharing of music with potentially thousands of people rather than the fair use doctrine of being able to share with your friends.
The McDonalds reference doesn't even remotely apply as no one is saying music is required to be free. This would be a bit like having to pay to get into a restaurant before you even know what is available on the menu. The food might be good or it might be awful but you have to pay for entrance and once you've done that there are no guarantees. This doesn't sound like the idea for a successful dining experience unless you can pretty consistently deliver some really good food. Of course that is up for interpretation as it is a matter of taste. Even this analogy is awful and I'll admit it right away. Intellectual property cannot be so easily compared physical property. When I copy a song from my cd to my mp3 player I am not stealing anything. Unless you have a twisted definition of stealing then I don't see this being anything that should be restricted.
It's times like these I'm glad my music tastes don't include RIAA affiliated bands so when I get their CD I can do whatever I want with it and the artist will actually be happy I'm enjoying it even if I'm not paying for the same song in WMA, MP3, Ogg, AAC, or all the other formats available.
One thing is for certain, the bands I worked with back in Vermont all cared more about getting their music heard than making money. Of course that's probably why they signed with a non-profit record label.
Hey, wait! Some of us really ARE hippie pirates who want everything for free!
www.leperkhanz.com
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Apple created Itunes and Ipod to work with each other
Yeah. And vinyl records and record players work with each other. I simply stand for the free market, and free market competition. That the government not exterminate the free market. That the government not prohibit competition. That the government not act to prohibit other companies doing their own work to make their own independant interoperable products.
If I buy Maxell audio cassettes, those tapes work in any brand player.
The reason corporations/peopel create things is because they can control them/profit from them.
Great. Then lets support copyright, and lets support free market by allowing independant hardware makers to offer their own competing interoperable players.
The only reason this whole "FORCE Apple to open their system" came up in government is because the government was debating a new law to ACTIVELY PROHIBT hardware companies from freely competing here. Because the government realized the disasterous effect doing that would have, and cooked up a stupid "compromise" of actively prohibiting competing products AND actively forcing Apple to help competitors to make mandatory authorized competing products. An absolutely insane way to fix to a new law that should not be passed in the first place.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Generally speaking, this occurs when the terms violate local law, be it a competition law, a privacy law, or a reverse engineering law, a fair use law, or whatever other law might apply to the distribution of digital information.
Indeed, by choosing to sell your product in a sovereign country, are you not implicitly agreeing to adhere to their laws? It seems a little rich to claim that someone is violating the terms under which you sell, when you yourself are violating the terms that allow you to sell in the first place.
The actual problem is fundamentally tied to the monopoly control aspects of intellectual property. There were numerous solutions accomplishing the same thing before iTunes, but as the RIAA corps wanted to keep control, they weren't acceptable to them.
Amazing how the DOJ has the gall to point to this issue as an example of regulation hindering innovation; strict IP legislation has already held innovation in the field back for the last decade, and the US has been a prime example.
Imagine the applications possible without monopoly based IP... you could have a vast library with all human culture available at the touch of a button. You could navigate through genres, performers, creators, country and culture of origin, you could mix and create and derive and enrich the culture to your hearts content. (Oh, and without the money drains of the RIAA/MPAA corps, we could pay even more creative talent for the same resources we spend today).
Yes, but the issue the grandparent was arguing was not the notion of DRM. It is whether the French government has a right to force Apple to open up its trade secrets to other companies. By forcing Apple to open up iTunes (if that were to happen), the French Government is effectively taking away a fundamental property right, the right to exclude, that one could argue Apple has. After all, they created iTunes and the iPod by themselves and are largely responsible for the success that it became. The French Government is now coming in and saying, "Good job. Now share with your competitors." This bad policy, since it discourages future companies from taking risks like this, which is what the grandparent was trying to get across. If this were the U.S. Government doing it, Apple would probably have a 5th Amendment Takings Clause claim on their hands.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
This has nothing to do with sour grapes. The point of these moves was to protect consumers from monopolies. I think it's time Apple opened up their DRM for use on other devices. If I want to buy music online I don't want to be locked in to using one device from one company for the rest of my life, do you? Currently (despite owning an iPod) I won't touch Apple's online store because of this issue, but I expect many governments to take action, not to dismantle, punish, or disable Apple, but to stop them using their near monopoly in one space (iPod) to extend that monopoly into another space (online media). They should be compelled to license (for a reasonable fee) their DRM to other widget makers, thus allowing the consumer to win and the market to blossom. In the end this would in fact be a huge bonus to Apple, because their revenue from the license fees would outweigh any potential loss on the widget sales (which won't crater if they continue to make the best ones), and they won't have to worry about MS steamrollering them with DRM included in Windows.
I like to think that Apple will eventually do the right thing on their own, because it is in their interest to do so now that they dominate the market but if they don't, they should be compelled to. Contrary to your beliefs, individual consumers (or even consumers en masse) do not have the power to compel them, they can only buy or not buy - often Hobson's choice in a 'free' market.
The big problem in Europe is that they are socialist and want to destroy the advantage that anyone over here has. You think if it was Nokia who was the first to market with the iPod/iTunes combination that the Scandanavian judicial system would be trying to break it open? I think not. It is really a case of sour grapes. If you can't compete, just drag them down.
Europe has (currently) 25 nation states - to characterise them all as 'socialist' is laughable, most aren't even aiming for something remotely socialist and definitions of socialist vary the world over. Try stepping around your stale stereotype and find out what's on the other side. If it was Nokia it's possible Finnish MPs could be persuaded to look the other way (1 country of 24 in Europe), however Finland technically isn't part of Scandinavia, which isn't a country and doesn't have a judicial system.
"Shrink-wrap licenses are not contracts."
In some countries they are legally binding. In some they are not. AFAIK they are legally binding in the USA, not in most of the EU, and in the UK it depends on which country you are in.
It's inconvenient, but not illegal.
This seems to be a running theme with systems aiming to "protect" content - they're not making things impossible, just more effort, and that simply means it hits the legitimate users and pushes them more towards the non-legitimate side. I'm sure this will come back to bite the media companies in the arse at some point.
So at the moment, I buy all my music on CD and immediately rip it into Ogg format. I can play the resulting Oggs on my computer at home or work, on my MythTV system and on my in-car stereo. And I've still got the CD if I want to use it on my CD player.
If I were to buy my music from Apple then in order to convert it to Ogg format I need to burn it to CD and then rip the CD - that's a lot of effort... Just firing up gnutella and downloading it is far easier. (The same goes for the corrupt optical discs that are being sold instead of CDs by a number of companies). Now personally, I do pay for my music (remember: I buy it on CD), but as it gets harder and harder to use the legally purchased content then people will be pushed towards downloading it illegally instead. And once they're having to download it to make use of it I'd bet a large chunk of people will just plain stop paying for it in the first place.
Essentially the media companies have completely lost their customer focus - they're adding annoyances that only affect their legitimate customers. Take DVDs for example - if I legitimately buy a DVD and play it on a licenced DVD player I have to put up with a long "piracy is stealing" video which I can't skip (ignoring, for a minute, the fact that piracy isn't stealing). If I were to get a pirated copy of the movie, or use it on an unlicenced player, I wouldn't have to put up with that. Why do they make bits of a DVD unskippable? Because they know noone wants to watch those bits - so do they somehow think that forcing people to watch it every time they put the DVD in the player *won't* piss off the legitimate customers?
So now if any customer wants a good quality of service, they have no choice but to infringe the copyright - Maybe I'm completely missing something, but I can't see how forcing your legitimate customers into piracy is supposed to reduce the number of people infringing your copyright...
http://blog.nexusuk.org
So, let me throw it back in your face: Since when is it your right to post bullshit to the public without having taken the time to learn or think about the area? ("Bill of rights" and freedom of speech is irrelevant - I'm talking about the moral issue, where you should be self-censoring out of a combination of responsibility and pride in yourself.)
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Read and enjoy!
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Ah, this explains Jobs' utter silence in response to the widespread Clinton admin+blogosphere outrage at Jobs/Disney/ABC/Refuglican Right Wing Noise Machine's airing of the mocku-lie-amentary Path to 9/11 earlier this week.
Just keep yer mouth shut, Steve, and you can be SecComm in the Schwarzenegger Admin in 08.
Posted by a long-time Mac lover who will never buy anything from iTunes Music Store.
If US is really worried about hurting the consumers, how about coming clean on the CIA kidnappings. the illegal secret prisons around the world and stopping the use of torture?
"They're not making things impossible, just more effort, and that simply means it hits the legitimate users"
All technological protection measures affect legitimate users. Having a lock on your door means carrying a key around with you at all times - lose it, and you're in deep shit. Same thing with burglar alarms, files protected by ciphers, computer security systems that require remembering user names and passwords, airport security, etc., etc., etc. All of them are inconvenient to legitimate users, and all can be bypassed by determined people with the necessary resources.
"and pushes them more towards the non-legitimate side."
No, it does not, any more than having a lock on your door "pushes" people into breaking into your house (NB: I am not equating copyright violation with theft here, but merely drawing an analogy). Like many who do illegal things, you are attempting to justify your own actions by pretending that you were somehow forced into them instead of merely having _chosen to act illegally_.
"If I were to buy my music from Apple then in order to convert it to Ogg format I need to burn it to CD and then rip the CD - that's a lot of effort... Just firing up gnutella and downloading it is far easier."
Stealing CDs is also a lot easier than earning money to buy them. And note that _you do not buy music_: you buy the medium it is recorded on, and some limited rights to use what is on that medium in specific ways. This has been the case since long before recorded music existed (sheet music carried and still carries similar terms), so it's hardly something new that has taken people by surprise.
"And once they're having to download it to make use of it I'd bet a large chunk of people will just plain stop paying for it in the first place."
The problem is that people were already doing precisely that before music DRM was widespread, hence the insistence on its use. DRM is a response to a perceived problem (which is not of course the same as an actual problem): rightly or wrongly, the music and movie industries believe that illegal downloads are seriously impacting their bottom line, and DRM is currently their preferred solution. Note though that they are experimenting with other systems such as free downloads supported by ads, so DRM may just be a stop-gap measure, or indeed the last gasp of entrenched industry players who are past their sell-by date, and will eventually be replaced by companies with a better grasp of the modern world.
"Essentially the media companies have completely lost their customer focus"
I'm not sure where you got the idea that they ever had a customer focus. The media industry has always been about control, and they've fought fiercely against any technology that could potentially threaten it: the theatre industry fought the fledgeling movie industry; the music and theatre industries opposed radio; everyone fought against TV; the music industry tried to get audio cassettes banned, and eventually got a levy imposed on every tape in many countries; the movie and TV industries tried to get video cassettes banned: etc., etc., etc. All of these actions were intended solely to maintain control over a particular lucrative delivery mechanism, and all were to the overall detriment of customers, who have never been anything more than mindless ambulant wallets to the media industry.
"Take DVDs for example - if I legitimately buy a DVD and play it on a licenced DVD player I have to put up with a long "piracy is stealing" video which I can't skip"
Take a moment to think of why it's there now, but not on older DVDs that came out before broadband Internet connections became commonplace. Again,it is a response to _a perceived problem_.
"If I were to get a pirated copy of the movie, or use it on an unlicenced player, I wouldn't have to put up with that"
You wouldn't have to put up with it if there weren't any pirated copies or unlicensed players either, just like you wouldn't have to put locks on your doors if there weren't
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
If you're gonna insist on using the stupid car analogy, here's a better one:
Locking itunes to the ipod is like manufacturing a car that can only use Shell gasoline, even though there's no technical reason why it can't use all brands.
"My point was that musicians dont have the option of retaining their intellectual property in the same way that say authors or painters do."
We do, actually.
"The recording house *owns* the music, not the artist."
The recording house owns a particular recording of the music, not the music itself _unless_ the artist happens to sign away their publishing and performing rights as well, hence the fact that it's common to see sheet music to an album published by a company that isn't affiliated with the one who distributes the album itself, and concerts containing performances of pieces that don't "belong" to the label the performer(s) is currently signed with. This is precisely the same situation as exists with writers and visual artists (including photographers). Some choose to maintain a good deal of freedom (and possibly starve in the process, or work a day job to avoid doing so), while others work as salaried employees of magazines / newspapers / assorted media companies, or commissioned freelancers, and sign all rights to a particular work over to whoever is paying them.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
"Since when is it a creator's (and what an abused term that is for the deriviative pap we're discussing) right to limit every citizen's abiity to distribute information to preserve one version of a business model for an extremely low-priorty 'product', as their distributors now call it?"
Let's frame this in other terms: since when is it anybody's right to limit the free flow of goods by using locks, alarms, and laws to preserve a business model based on an abstracted barter system?
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
I keep hearing that they are and that they aren't. It's so hard to get either side to post links to court documents.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
No, it does not, any more than having a lock on your door "pushes" people into breaking into your house
This is a bad analogy:
- People who would break into my house are never "legitimate users".
- I chose to put the lock on my door to protect *me* - it wasn't imposed on me by some third party in order to protect *them*.
If the lock on my door was placed there by some other authority and did nothing to protect me then yes, I would be pushed into bypassing it if it causes me an inconvenience.
Like many who do illegal things, you are attempting to justify your own actions by pretending that you were somehow forced into them instead of merely having _chosen to act illegally_.
Errm, *I* haven't chosen to act illegally - I am simply saying that if you make it way more inconvenient for people to take the legitimate route than the illegal route then you will push more people towards the illegal side. Whether these people are "right" or "wrong" is a completely moot point - the fact that otherwise legitimate users have decided they're going to take the illegal route because of the publishers actions certainly can't be considered good for the publisher's business. And yet, the people who were going to act illegally anyway are still going to act illegally - who benefits?
Stealing CDs is also a lot easier than earning money to buy them.
This is also a bogus argument - most people *have* the money to buy CDs - if you already had the money anyway then it doesn't feature in the "effort to get the CD" calculation.
Also, you seem to be using theft analogies a lot - copyright infringement is _not_ theft, despite what certain people want to to believe. If you infringe copyright you haven't relieved anyone of anything they already had.
The problem is that people were already doing precisely that before music DRM was widespread, hence the insistence on its use.
I won't argue with that point (although I will suggest the problem isn't anywhere near as big as the music industry maintain - in many cases music piracy seems to cause people to *buy* music they otherwise wouldn't have bought. Maybe the industry's problem is that more people are buying higher quality music rather than the music the industry is trying to promote)
However, it brings me back to my original point - DRM won't prevent copying so it doesn't solve the problem, and in the process it has also annoyed legitimate consumers who, as a result, are pushed more towards the easy (illegal) route rather than the difficult (legal, DRM encumbered) route.
all were to the overall detriment of customers
You're not making a very good arguement for DRM...
Again,it is a response to _a perceived problem_
I'm afraid I just can't see how this response makes any sense at all, whether there is a perceived problem or an actual problem. It doesn't impact the people who are causing the problem, whilest it impacts the legitimate customers.
You wouldn't have to put up with it if there weren't any pirated copies or unlicensed players either
I'm not sure what your point is - yes, people break the law. What I have been saying is that DRM doesn't impact the people who are breaking the law, whilest it encourages the otherwise legitimate consumers to break the law as well. How does that help?
this is the only way to make people understand that _unauthorised_ downloading is illegal
How will it do that? The people who do unauthorised downloading won't ever see the copyright warnings since they'll already have been stripped. Meanwhile, the people who bought it legitimately have to put up with a warning that doesn't apply to them.
And seriously - how many people really don't know that copyright infringement is illegal? People who infringe copyright do it with the full knowledge that it's illegal - reminding them of this fact does nothing.
Yet the fact of the matter is that being entertained by someb
http://blog.nexusuk.org
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Because people are sheep, and vote for who they're told to. Most of the country looks for that (D) or (R) next to a politician's name at the booth (the what... 10% that actually vote these days?)
So money means more media means more telling people who to vote for. Unless you live in Florida, in which case money can actually literally PURCHASE votes. Espcially from dead people. Not blacks, though. Florida receives money to make sure they don't vote. So... dead people voting, black people not allowed to... hmm... seems like it all balances out...
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
Thanks for pickig up the guantlet on defending my post from the /herd. Well done, well done.
Your use of profanity demonstrates how banal you are. And your signature lets me and everyone else know that you are a worthless moron who produces nothing. DRM is of no interest to you because you could never create anything worth protecting or that would be profitable.
Isn't it time for you to start your shift at Radio Shack?
Barnett cited recent foreign proposals to impose restrictions on Apple's iTunes service as an example of strict regulation which could discourage innovation and hurt consumers.
What about the DMCA, and US trying to harmonize laws.
You explain how switching formats does not break the DMCA, and I agree. I do not believe it has been proven in court that switching file formats like that is allowed by copyright laws. I doubt there will be lawsuits about that any time soon, but lack of lawsuits does not make it legal.
Companies are free to sell anything in any format they want just as consumers are free to pass on the product if they don't want to deal with vendor lock in. You don't like Apple's DRM then don't shop at iTunes and your problem is solved. Quite whining like a 4 year old girl.
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/procd .html
Developers: We can use your help.
You know..I keep hearing this, but, really...what black person that was properly registered was turned away from voting?
I mean, if people were turning them away in droves....pointing guns or threatening them to go away...I would surely have though that it would have been captured by news reporters/photographers or TV. I have a hard time believing that something blatant like that would have escaped very real documentation and widespread publication of such rather than just some rumours.
Now, I live in southern LA., and the dead person voting thing..ok, I can believe that one...but, live people tend to kick and scream enough to draw attention in a large way, especially if anyone raises the 'race' card on it.
Just some observations....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
First, I'm NOT a DRM fan. But, I think the GP was alluding to the license or 'contract' you agree to when you join the iTunes store. I think (and I've not joined it) that there is an agreement to their terms you have to agree to, such as the DRM and other issues before you can legally enter the store to purchase (actually more like rental) songs and videos from them.
I don't think they were implying any type license or contract was done for physical media purchased by you, like the CD's you mentioned. As far as I know, there is no license or contract involved with that transaction, and you indeed should be free to do with it as you please under the current copyright laws that are out there, which do allow for 'fair use'.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well, you're half right. Fair use DOES allow for the first part of you statement, just before the 'putting it on Kazaa' part. The format shifting to mp3 is fair use, the distributing to P2P is not...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You are assuming an infinite market with no cultural feedback effects/lock in. This assumption is false. As a such, it's necessary with regulation to actually preserve a working market.
Am I? How so? (seriously)
I thought I was assuming an already existing market (CDs), and no vendor lock in (burn CDs from tracks you've purchased via iTunes and do whatever you want).
It's hypocritical of Apple to complain that people, individuals or governments, want to remove or restrict its use of DRM when the only reason iPods were a success is because of all the music already out there that had no DRM.
According to theregister "The average iPod owner has done little more than dabble with Apple's store, figures show, carrying an average of 21 iTunes-purchased songs" so most of the music on most iPods is either illegally downloaded from the net in forms without DRM or ripped from CDs (and please note that even doing that is not legal in many countries outside the US).
If people had to buy all the music for their iPods from the iTMS they simply wouldn't buy iPods. Apple says their 30GB iPod hold 7500 songs, and at 99c each that's $7425! Apple took advantage of all those CDs, records and MP3s already out there to get to the top, and now they're trying to lock the door behond them with DRM and legislation to keep them there by stopping competitors having the same chance they did.
No, they don't. The creator has a monopoly by the virtue of a system that grants copyright on creation. This is something that's only as new as the 1970s. Before that point, you had to actually register to obtain this monopoly.
When I paint a painting, or write an original manuscript - I have a monopoly on that item. Only one exists. You didn't understand what I was saying.
Wrong. Plagarism is the act of misattributing an idea as if it were one's own. Copyright infringement is misusing too much or in an unacceptable way part or whole of a copyrighted work. You can commit plagarism on works that aren't copyrighted. The fact is, some reference works can be copyrighted because the artful arrangement of information can be considered a creative work and hence copyrightable. Obviously the phone book isn't artful and can't be copyrighted.
You need to look at the definition for Plagiarism.
As for artists being able to mimic or copy each other, flat out copying wouldn't be any more copyrightable than using a xerox machine.
Not true. Sometimes what people are interested in buying is an artists style. The comparison of someone copying a masterwork by hand and using a xerox machine is inaccurate. The mechanism used for duplication makes all the difference in this area as it is a regarded element of these goods.
Actually, playing a work live could be considered a performance, and that entails paying money to the copyright holder. Further, samlping sections of a song and using them in your song is rather questionable, especially if you plan to copyright and sell such a song.
Sorry, playing a song live is not a performance. Performing a play is a performance. Performing a whole album by another band, recording the live show, and then selling the album is a performance. The content in question is taken into account on every matter. Stanford has pretty good material on the subject. Sampling is questionable in a case by case basis.
Again, fair use isn't so clear cut as to say that a lack of profit is sufficient to say that George Lucas is unable to stop people from using "Light Saber" in a work. This is especially the case when one is writing fiction of one's own and not simply citing it as a non-fiction reference. Obviously, non-fiction will have a smaller market effect on fiction than other fiction.
You're right. It also has to negatively impact the revenue generated by the creator's original work. See the Stanford link above.
How? Is the land the product of creativity (and I mean the land itself, not its usage which itself is not what land ownership is about; such would be land usageship)? I guess in some extent, managing to claim ownership of land is an amount of creativity, since clearly that's not an innate property of land. But the abstract idea of owning land stopped being creative and unique the second someone else was doing it too. The idea for land ownership is based on the innate finiteness of land. You can't copy land nor can two people utilize the same land in all ways at the same time. The same can't be said of copyrighted works.
You're over analyzing. The land is finite. The created work is finite at inception. Do not confuse the creative work (a finite resource) with the delivery vehicle of the creative work (often renewable, and in the case of digital infinte, resource). While the creative work may be emulated, duplicated, or built upon. The original work created is very finite.
If they don't complain then the US has every right to believe that what apple is doing is a good compomise.
silence does not equal support.
this is a logical fallacy which is always whipped out by politicians, but especially extremists trying to claim support for their unpopular cause.
In the case of a medical emergency.. it would be like an EMT claming someone was perfectly fine because he is not screaming in pain.. even though his lungs are impaled or he's unconscious and in shock.
In the case of the presidential elections, such an assertion would be similar to G.W. claiming that because X % of the U.S. population didn't vote that means they support the incumbent. After all, they didnt speak.. they must be content right?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Fine. You have a monopoly on the master copy. The problem is, most people don't place much higher value on the master copy of something with duplicates are virtually identical (ie, the degredation in quality of a copy is so low that it decreases the amount of sub-generation copies possible with acceptable quality from something on the order of 100 to 99). Further, presenting your manuscript or painting to the public in any way inherently removes your monopoly, as there's nothing to stop a person from reverse engineering how you created your work and making a virtually identical duplicate. All of this falls under simple privacy laws, not copyright.
"a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work" -- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=plagi arism
If I copy a sentence out of a copyright book, that's probably fair use, even if it's plagiarism. And if I copy a sentence out of a non-copyrighted book, that's simple plagiarism without copyright infringement. People have sued others over plagiarism specifically because it *isn't* copyright infringement. The only thing copyright would be advantageous for is to offer proof that you're the original source for the idea. Unfortunately, since you don't have to register anywhere anymore for a copyright, it's the case that a default copyright doesn't really help much because each person can simply claim they copyrighted it first and there's no simple third party to necessarily prove it true.
Okay, so instead of xerox machine it's a robot that mimics the artistic style of others. When it comes down to it, if that machine makes ten copies of the same thing, each painted version doesn't get its own copyright. There's a lack of creativity in duplication, and it's creativity that is the underpinning for granting copyright.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Yep.
I use iTunes and the iTMS because I know I can legally and in a supported way get out from under the DRM if I need to.
Apple's old iTunes slogan tells you how.
Oh, and Barnett said the scrutiny of Apple 'provides a useful illustration of how an attack on intellectual property rights can threaten dynamic innovation.'.
How about how the unreasoning enforcement of intellectual "property" rights threatens dynamic innovation. If iTunes was as closed as (for example) Sony's old protection schemes for their mini-discs, it would have met the same fate.
no. this is not a right, it's a privilege bestowed (or not) upon you by the copyright holder.
For example, currently RIAA does grant you the priviledge to format-shifting your CDs (but they reserve the right to change that in the future).
However, they do NOT grant you the privilege to 'format-shifting' DRMed downloads.
more info here if you care: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004212.php
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
The rulings for fair use don't say you can or can't do it on DRM'ed stuff...for fair use. However the the DMCA kinda throws a wrench into all this, and I honestly am not exactly sure on this, but, I think that the few provisions in the DMCA that allow for bypassing DRM may allow you to do it for personal use, but, it is against the law for you to describe how you did it or distribute tools to help others do it.
Fair use is your right, however, the RIAA or copyright owners aren't obliged to help you pursue your right...hence the DRM.
But, as far as fair use rights go...no, the copyright holders cannot change that...that is set forth by law at this point. Only a change in copyright law could do that.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"People who would break into my house are never "legitimate users"."
So firefighters should leave you to burn if your house is locked...
" I chose to put the lock on my door to protect *me*"
Just like the copyright holders put locks on their doors to protect them. They aren't locking up your property, because you don't own the copyrights to what's being protected -- all you own is the media they're distributed on, and a limited license to use it certain ways.
" I am simply saying that if you make it way more inconvenient for people to take the legitimate route than the illegal route then you will push more people towards the illegal side."
And I am saying that the legal route to many things is less convenient than the illegal one. As an example, driving a car or flying a plane legally requires a considerable amount of time and effort that can be avoided by simply ignoring the need for a license and the lessons required to get it, insurance, regular road or air worthiness checks, etc.
"This is also a bogus argument - most people *have* the money to buy CDs"
Why then are extremely large numbers of them stolen every year, leading many stores to put empty boxes on display?
"you seem to be using theft analogies a lot - copyright infringement is _not_ theft, despite what certain people want to to believe"
Well, hush my mouth, I didn't know that, so the bit accompanying my theft analogy stating that it is an analogy, and that copyright infringement isn't theft must have been a typo.
"I will suggest the problem isn't anywhere near as big as the music industry maintain"
Both media and software companies produce ludicrous figures for so-called "losses to piracy" which assume that every illegal download would be a sale if the illegal download wasn't there. Nobody else can get away with this sort of rubbish: a prosecutor who seriously suggested that three guys who made off with 500 TV sets would have bought them all if the warehouse had been empty would be laughed out of court, yet the media and software industries get away with saying precisely this, and people believe them.
"in many cases music piracy seems to cause people to *buy* music they otherwise wouldn't have bought"
While countless others didn't buy something they might have bought if there wasn't an easily accessible free version. IMO there is one, and only one justification for illegal downloading, i.e. those who are seeking specific works that cannot now be obtained legally.
"Maybe the industry's problem is that more people are buying higher quality music rather than the music the industry is trying to promote"
There is no objective measure of quality in commercial art beyond what sells, and anyone who suggests otherwise is an elitest snob. IMO the main problem is that music has less importance for teenagers in particular than used to be the case because they have so many other distractions nowadays: video games, the Internet and EMAIL, mobile phones, and various other things are all vying for their attention, so music has lost the prominent, generation-defining nature that it had for much of the 20th century. Television has exactly the same problem, i.e. a declining and aging audience due to the fact that the younger people so beloved of advertisers are increasingly seeking other forms of entertainment, and it's likely that both industries will eventually be forced to change their modus operandi if they are to avoid becoming increasingly irrelevant.
"DRM won't prevent copying so it doesn't solve the problem"
Like DRM on computer software or satellite / cable TV systems, it prevents casual copying, and that's the best that can be expected from a purely technological system. As I said previously, those with enough determination and resources can bypass any security system, but this doesn't mean that people just give up and leave their possessions unprotected.
"and in the process it has also annoyed legitimate consumers who, as a result, are pushed
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Just like the copyright holders put locks on their doors to protect them.
Well this was a bad analogy to begin with, but to continue the bad analogy this is closer to preventing people from entering a public building, such as a shopping mall, until they've sat through a 5 minute presentation telling them not to break the law. I think you'd find any shopping malls that tried that would suddenly start losing a whole load of customers who would go elsewhere.
While countless others didn't buy something they might have bought if there wasn't an easily accessible free version.
I recall seeing statistics showing that whilest singles sales have been dropping since MP3 sharing became popular, album sales have increased. It seems to me that many people are just doing the "try before you buy" thing and then buying the albums containing many tracks they like instead of singles containing just one track they like.
There is no objective measure of quality in commercial art beyond what sells, and anyone who suggests otherwise is an elitest snob.
This is untrue. The "quality" of art can be determined by what people _like_, which is not the same as what _sells_ due to marketting - something that people would like will not sell if noone knows about it's existance. The lack of marketting and therefore the lack of sales does not determine a lack of quality of the actual product.
Currently, the media's marketting tactics are to hype up a few acts. The advent of peer-to-peer sharing has meant that the consumers discover acts who haven't been marketted so aggressively but are "better" (i.e. the consumer prefers their music). If people are spending more on the smaller acts then they won't be spending so much on the big acts. This isn't necessarilly a problem for the music industry, but it doesn't fit with their current marketting policies. What _is_ a problem to the industry is that some smaller acts are now able, to some extent, to go it alone without signing to a label.
Like DRM on computer software or satellite / cable TV systems, it prevents casual copying, and that's the best that can be expected from a purely technological system.
No... no it doesn't. If I want to casually copy some DRM'd content I only have to fire up my Gnutella or Bittorrent client - it only takes one person to rip the content and put it online, and when you're distributing your content to millions of people you can pretty much guarantee that _someone_ will do it.
because these warnings are aimed at potential uploaders rather than downloaders
This may or may not be true - certainly the wording on some warnings on DVDs I have looks very much directed toward the downloader/buyer.
unless you are seriously going to suggest that the average media consumer finds sitting through a one minute unskippable ad
Some of my DVDs have *5 minute* unskippable videos at the start telling me that "copying is stealing" (which it isn't). Add to this that some DVDs have unskippable trailors for other movies and you've got a lot more than "a one minute unskippable ad". If I were using a licenced DVD player instead of Xine (and thus were affected by unskippable content) then these discs would go straight back to the shop - I didn't pay to have to put up with that kind of crap.
and then downloading and installing the relevant codecs to play it.
I've never had to install extra codecs to play any videos - mplayer handles most stuff out of the box.
than whether they'll be able to play a $1 song from iTunes on whatever music player they might end up with in 5 years.
You're right that most people won't care too much about a $1 song not playing... However, if your library of 1000 $1 tracks suddenly stopped working you'd probably be pretty pissed off, right? I dunno about you but I still regularly play a lot of my music collection that's well over 5 years old.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
"this is closer to preventing people from entering a public building, such as a shopping mall, until they've sat through a 5 minute presentation telling them not to break the law."
How is this like DRM?
"I think you'd find any shopping malls that tried that would suddenly start losing a whole load of customers who would go elsewhere."
Not if everyone was doing the same thing.
"I recall seeing statistics showing that whilest singles sales have been dropping since MP3 sharing became popular, album sales have increased."
The statistics I've seen indicate that both have decreased, but singles have decreased more than albums. Note though that I think piracy plays a relatively minor role in this, and that there are other much more significant reasons for the decline in sales.
"The "quality" of art can be determined by what people _like_, which is not the same as what _sells_ due to marketting"
Read what I said again, because I specifically referred to _commercial art_, not art in general. As with other commercial offerings, the sole measure of success for commercial art is how well it sells, irrespective of the reason for this.
"Currently, the media's marketting tactics are to hype up a few acts."
This is what they've always done.
"The advent of peer-to-peer sharing has meant that the consumers discover acts who haven't been marketted so aggressively but are "better" (i.e. the consumer prefers their music)."
If this is true, then why have illegal downloads of the heavily marketed acts / movies always massively outnumbered those of not so heavily marketed ones?
"If I want to casually copy some DRM'd content I only have to fire up my Gnutella or Bittorrent client - it only takes one person to rip the content and put it online, and when you're distributing your content to millions of people you can pretty much guarantee that _someone_ will do it."
That's because most such content is either ripped from unprotected CDs, or DVDs whose DRM is so weak that it was broken years ago, and cannot now be replaced with something better. I am willing to bet that very little of what's out there was obtained by cracking a modern DRM scheme, just like very few of today's pirated games come from commercial DRM-protected disks, but are instead put on the net by "insiders" who had access to unprotected internal versions.
"Some of my DVDs have *5 minute* unskippable videos at the start telling me that "copying is stealing" (which it isn't). Add to this that some DVDs have unskippable trailors for other movies and you've got a lot more than "a one minute unskippable ad". If I were using a licenced DVD player instead of Xine (and thus were affected by unskippable content) then these discs would go straight back to the shop - I didn't pay to have to put up with that kind of crap."
The correct action would be to take them back and demand a refund instead of finding ways around what you deem to be unacceptable. If enough people did thus, then shareholder pressure would force the media companies to change their tactics, whereas simply pirating their content or using computer software or a DVD player with workarounds does nothing to alleviate the problem, and piracy actively compound it. All that'd be required is a few percent of users to effect a change, because with relatively low-margin high volume goods like DVDs (where the store makes much more than the studio), two or three percentage points can have a big impact on profits, and therefore shareholder returns on their investment.
"I've never had to install extra codecs to play any videos - mplayer handles most stuff out of the box."
The fact that you had to download and install mplayer does however prove rather than refute my point.
"You're right that most people won't care too much about a $1 song not playing... However, if your library of 1000 $1 tracks suddenly stopped working you'd probably be pretty pissed off, right? I dunno about you but I still regularly play a lot of m
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
How is this like DRM?
It's exactly like DRM - the shopping malls have to put up with a minority of people shop lifting. So they could force everyone going into the mall to sit through a "do not steal" presentation.
This is pretty much identical to a DVD - the media corporations have to put up with a minority of people infringing their copyright. So they force everyone using the content to sit through a "do not infringe" video.
As with other commercial offerings, the sole measure of success for commercial art is how well it sells, irrespective of the reason for this.
You are talking about commercial success - my original comment was about _quality_, not success. As far as quality goes then yes, from the corporation's point of view the "quality" of the whole product (including marketting, etc) equates to how much it sells. However, from the _consumer's_ point of view the "quality" is very much a question of how much they like the product, irrespecitve of how it was marketted.
If this is true, then why have illegal downloads of the heavily marketed acts / movies always massively outnumbered those of not so heavily marketed ones?
Because they are heavilly marketted. However, I suspect if you compare the number of people listening to the big acts and the small acts proportionally over the years you will find that the _proportion_ of sales going to the small acts has increased.
That's because most such content is either ripped from unprotected CDs, or DVDs whose DRM is so weak that it was broken years ago, and cannot now be replaced with something better.
And I'm sure when bandwidth catches up you will see HD movies ripped from BluRay and posted online. This is already possible since HDCP was cracked before being put into production. Remember that all the DRM cracks in the public domain at the moment have been written by someone like DVD Jon who has got pissed off with the DRM and wants to use the content they paid for in a non-infringing way that the DRM doesn't allow. These cracks were not developed by professional copyright infringers.
The correct action would be to take them back and demand a refund instead of finding ways around what you deem to be unacceptable.
I haven't purposefully "found a way around" the problem - I use an unlicenced DVD player because it better does what I need (integrates with MythTV, runs under the OS I use, etc.). The fact that it allows me to skip stuff I'm not supposed to skip is just a side effect.
The fact that you had to download and install mplayer does however prove rather than refute my point.
No it doesn't - I only "had to download" it because I downloaded my entire Linux distribution - it came as an integral part of the distro. I no more "had to download" mplayer than I "had to download" my text editor.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
"It's exactly like DRM - the shopping malls have to put up with a minority of people shop lifting. So they could force everyone going into the mall to sit through a "do not steal" presentation."
DRM doesn't involve any sort of presentation -- it is a locking system, not an ad.
"This is pretty much identical to a DVD - the media corporations have to put up with a minority of people infringing their copyright. So they force everyone using the content to sit through a "do not infringe" video."
It is an ad like the unskippable trailers, not a form of DRM.
"You are talking about commercial success - my original comment was about _quality_, not success."
As I said before, commercial success is the sole measure of quality for any commercial art form, because it is the only one that can be quantified. Anything beyond that is merely somebody saying their preference is more valid than that of someone else, i.e. elitist snobbery.
"Because they are heavilly marketted."
People must also like and want what is being marketed, otherwise there wouldn't be countless massively hyped flops.
"I suspect if you compare the number of people listening to the big acts and the small acts proportionally over the years you will find that the _proportion_ of sales going to the small acts has increased."
I have seen no evidence to either support or refute this, and so cannot argue for or against it.
"And I'm sure when bandwidth catches up you will see HD movies ripped from BluRay and posted online."
You are very likely correct.
"I haven't purposefully "found a way around" the problem - I use an unlicenced DVD player because it better does what I need (integrates with MythTV, runs under the OS I use, etc.). The fact that it allows me to skip stuff I'm not supposed to skip is just a side effect."
Fair enough.
"I only "had to download" it because I downloaded my entire Linux distribution - it came as an integral part of the distro. I no more "had to download" mplayer than I "had to download" my text editor."
Ah, I forgot that desktop Linux now comes pre-installed on 95% of PCs and laptops, thus ensuring that the majority of the public who you say lack the technical wherewithall to understand what DRM is will already have mplayer and know how to use it. You'll have to chalk it up to me being an old timer who used to live in a time when a company called Microsoft had a desktop monopoly, desktop Linux was only used by a few geeks who were totally atypical of the market for media products, and most music players actually came without support for Ogg or FLAC.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.