Slashdot Mirror
The Day Against DRM
Qubit writes, "DefectiveByDesign.org, a campaign by the Free Software Foundation, is making Oct 3rd a Day Against DRM: 'Defeating DRM is all about awareness. The direct actions that we have taken are all about this. Today we are asking you to let the people around you know that DRM is bad for our society. Let's create space for the debate. Do we want handcuffs and locks on art and knowledge? As our friends at Disney recognize, if there is this debate, we will have won.'" Bayboy adds an article from eWeek mentioning that members of DefectiveByDesign.org are going to descend on flagship Apple stores in New York and London to protest the company's embrace of DRM. And Another AC writes, "In honor of the Day Against DRM, DreamHost has released a new service called Files Forever (for Dreamhost customers only during beta) This seems to be basically an iTunes Music Store that anybody can sell any sort of files through... as long as they have no DRM. Dreamhost handles all the payment processing and stores the file forever, offering unlimited re-downloads to end users who buy files through the service. When somebody buys a file they're even allowed to 'loan' it to others for free!"
Let's create space for the debate. Do we want handcuffs and locks on art and knowledge?
As a master debater, I can say that I do enjoy handcuffs and locks on at least *some* of the art. That is, if you call pr0n "art".
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Wish I had known about it before today....
tag der deutschen einheit and day against drm. hmm...
...but thanks for telling me at 22:22 hours. An hour and 38 minutes before its the 4th of October!
Jonathanjk.com
It's already October 4th in my time zone. See ya next year then, that is if DRM won't already have become a de facto with Vista, the PS3 and God knows what else.
It seems kind of weird that they'd target Apple, especially when there are far worse companies out there with much more draconian DRM policies they could make an example of. (Sony, anyone?)
My guess, it's all about location and convenience, rather than actually going after some of the really bad DRM offenders. Apple just happens to be the one unfortunate enough to have stores that are visually appealing and easily recognizable to consumers.
The intentions here may be good, but the execution is nearly at hypocritical levels.
8==8 Bones 8==8
People aren't going to care until it starts costing them money. Take iTunes for example. Right now, they have DRM that's loose enough that most people won't care that their songs are DRM'ed. People who buy iTunes songs will probably buy another iPod when their old one breaks, so they won't run into a DRM problem.
There is a very good possibility that in the near future, people will start changing their music players, like the new MS Zune. When this happens on a mass scale, and people have to re-buy their music, there will be a huge number of pissed off people, and people will finally realize why DRM is bad. Until something threatens people's wallets, no one's going to care.
As much as I dislike DRM, I can't really get too worked up about these protests either. For starters, I get the idea that Apple stores are being "picked on" because they're seen as "high profile" in the mass media. In reality, I don't think Apple was all that "pro DRM" at all. They simply agreed to it in order to successfully get the whole iTunes music store off to a start with major record labels on-board.
... since to this day, they *still* offer one of the most flexible set of usage rights on the DRM'd files. (As many as 5 computers can be authorized to use one user's purchased music, and anything purchased can be burnt to audio CD format as many times as you wish - as long as you create new "playlists" of tracks every so many times first, etc.) In fact, although it's not advertised, there are several documented cases of users losing all their music due to drive crashes, and upon emailing Apple support, were granted the ability to re-download everything they lost at no charge. They also allow you to reset your computer authorizations up to once per year, in case you forget to de-authorize systems before wiping the drives on them and selling them to someone else.
Until Apple did this and proved the business model was really viable, the only other real visible options for people were illegal downloads of MP3s (of sometimes dubious encoding quality) from p2p networks like Napster.
It seems obvious to me that somewhere in the development process, Apple did some bargaining for rights of the end-users of the music
Microsoft's "Fairplay" DRM and its upcoming use in devices like the Zune seem like a much more worthy target of attack. Fairplay is used by practically all the music services BUT Apple - and is getting more and more restrictive in every update to Windows Media Player that's released. Unlike Apple, MS seems to think it's ok to keep "turning the screws" to lock it down beyond what early adopters were told the rules were.
attack defacto DRM! force material locked into CD-ROM to be released on LPs. Attacking DRM is admitting that the commercial interests have won. You have such a desire to have the material released in DRM format, but cannot afford etc, that you want to break laws to get at it. You want Disney Movies? Even if you remove DRM, you still have to buy a copy, to not pay for the material is theft, or is that the ultimate goal of many? to have a format that is easy to illegally 'share'? just a thought.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Would some one please explain what exactly it wrong with DRM? If you have a problem with concept of copyrights in general, then I can understand. But is there anyone out there that is cool with copyrights, but thinks DRM is bad?
I'm not trying to be an apologist for the corporations. I know they don't care about the art or the artist, only money. That's given. But do they not have a right to protect their intellectual property? Are the detractors of DRM against the concept of intellectual property altogether?
The way I see it is there is nothing wrong with the concept of DRM, only with the abuse of DRM. Is this a "slippery slope" argument?
I'm serious in my plea here. Someone please fill me in on what I am missing!
> As our friends at Disney recognize, if there is this debate, we will have won.
:)
DRM is not their thing, but copyright control is. Winnie The Pooh has been imprisoned for way beyond the standard copyright limits. Odd that they'd be for freeing the music but not the cartoons that sang it.
Everyone should put "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah" on their digital players.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
police investigating a series of murders are taking an "incitement to hatred" tack.
Hundred's of people called "Adam" have apparently been drowned by having their heads plunged into water coolers in offices around Australia.
Detective Ron Steele mentioned:
"It's either an incredible statistical anomaly, or we have a even more incredibly prolific serial attacker in our midst!".
The killer left no clues, except this, the only connecting factor in this attack has been this sign, carefully placed by each water cooler.
... and explain to me why I would buy anything from this store rather than just download it from somebody else for free?
Same reasons you'd buy a book, rather than scan one you borrowed from the library:
- You want a non-infringing copy. (You CAN still be sued for copying outside fair use, you know.)
- You want to reward the creator and distribution channel (either out of principle or to promote creation of more stuff you like).
- It's convenient.
Content producers in a number of media have experimented with copy inhibition technologies and generally found them unnecessary and often counter-productive to good business results. Why should music be different?
(The current rash of "piracy" is, IMHO, primarily a reaction to broken distribution and pricing policies, and recording companies will do a lot better once {if?} they get over it.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Hey! There's a difference between tolerating and permitting.
This seems a little presumptious of DreamHost. I know full well that if I create something, I have no enforcable means to prevent people from sharing it. But I can still ask. A lot of people, when asked, will do as I request. Why is Dreamhost deciding what I can and can't allow with my creation? Aren't I allowed to decide what I specifically want to permit within the realms of copyright, and leave it to my basic trust in my fans honesty to ensure this?
I'm not going to stir the shit much, I will only say that one problem with DRM is that it causes the music you bought to not be able to be played any way you want. We're not talking public broadcast, we're talking about downloading a WMA file and putting it on your personal player, or burning to CD, or any use other than using Windows Media Player at your computer to hear it. Also, some DRM schemes are broken and won't even play on the equipment they're supposed to be geared for. With DRM you're renting music.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Convienence? Quality Assurances? and in this case, Wanting to support the author?
I currently use one of those lovely russian mp3 sites for the first two reasons; they have a vast catalog, and I can always get files in my prefered (encoding-error free, DRMless, 192kbit LAME MP3) format. I would even go as far as to say I would jump ship to another (even if slightly more expensive) one if it (somehow) found a way to recompensate the artists without bowing to label pressure to cripple the files. It's worth a few bucks per album (to me at any rate) to be able to simply click and get what you want, instead of having to hunt through crapflooded P2P networks and fields of broken links.
From the look of the FilesForever site, if it takes off it will also have a huge advantage for finding things from little/obscure sources (music and otherwise), which would be overlooked in a more centeralized system.
I hate it when companies provide options! Lets protest them! A tyranny of choices, I say.
I don't like DRM so I buy all my music on CD's, but for people who don't mind the DRM, well, that's too bad! We need to stop people from having the option to purchase things how they want, but force them to purchase things how *I* want. Right?
You nerds need to get a life. There are so many more important things in the world than a company that gives you the to option to purchase songs online with restrictions that you KNOW about.
So I can use Dreamhost to store my backups?
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
Every day should be a day against DRM. But all that is irrelevant from a isolated point of view (mine, actually) - I won't buy into any content that is rigged in ways that hinder me from using it. I can *already* watch HD movies (warez, ofcourse) in my home theatre with 5.1 sound no less and so can any Joe or Jack who wants.
;)
Now, this deal is presented to me: I can pay premium for stuff that I cannot even use properly (BluRay, HD-DVD) since I don't have "HDCP compliant" setup, yessir, I got one of these "ancient" 50" Plasma displays that only have analogic input (and DVI from the receiver box but think again if it will be HDCP compliant
Heck, I already get *better* quality stuff FOR FREE! Hello, anyone awake there in the movie industry? Give us products we want and we will pay for them (200+ original dvd format movies)
But it just gets better. With DRM it is possible to terminate the "License" at any time someone just thinks about it. Also have to have online connectivity to watch the media (WTF?) to acquire a license for some media for it even play back. Needless to say, my first and last purchase of that kind. Was interesting "experience", learned a lot from it.. ummm, that I am an idiot to go for that scam? There is still hope when learning from one's mistakes, it would be sad if didn't, huh?
Good luck with the DRM scam whoever may be concerned.
Everyday should be against DRM! Check out this new documentary if you want to know why...
ALTERNATIVE FREEDOM
A documentary about the invisible war on culture.
Features RMS, Danger Mouse (of Gnarls Barkley and the Grey Album), Lawrence Lessig, and more...
http://alternativefreedom.org/
Apple may be the "least bad" of the lot, but they're certainly the highest profile. If the point is to get publicity for the anti-DRM cause, protesting high visibility cases is a better idea than protesting low visibility cases.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
The same reason that the vast majority of people currently buy their music on CD when they could just steal it from a store, or copy it from a friend, or download it online. The same reason that thousands of people buy music from independent artists online, when they could just download it.
If you're trying to assert that most people would pirate music rather than paying for it, unless they physically prevented from doing so by their own property, then you are wrong. Contrary to the RIAA's twisted statistics, piracy is not decreasing sales. At the peak of napster's popularity sales at the register were rising, not falling. The falling numbers the RIAA liked to quote were wholesale numbers. This can be traced to the stores streamlining their inventory and stocking systems as a result of the internet. At that time, music stores near colleges did have falling sales, but so did book stores near colleges, and both correlate strongly to increases in internet sales of the same item. Subsequently, the decrease in sales that have been seen, are largely in the "oldies" adult market - and yet if you look at the statistics for what types of music is being pirated, it is clear piracy is not to blame for that. The threat of piracy is overblown, and unsubstantiated.
So no, most people are not selfish assholes, just you. But hey, congratulations! It is the minority of people like you that have given the RIAA leverage to strip away the fair-use right of the rest of the people in this country, and bias the laws in favor of further consolidation of the market. You sure stuck it to The Man.
burn this book
As someone living at GMT+12:
Well you know that information might have been a little more useful to me YESTERDAY!!!
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Sandler, of course I meant Sandler.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
So they're targeting Apple, who has the arguably most servicable DRM.
If the users don't hit the limits and object, then these guys are simply arguing principle with no tangible effect.
In which case this is a severly detached campaign, the 2000 version of the turtleneck caucasian beatnik ranting how "It's all about the Man keeping me down."
Art has handcuffs.
Business puts them there. Art today barely survives outside of commerce.
The Mona Lisa is in a big vault, and you have to pay to get into the vault anbd look at it.
You can look and hold at a lossy copy of it for less money, but it's no comparison to the original.
You can look at a near-lossless copy of it if you pay more to do so.
You can own a near-lossless copy of it if you pay a lot more.
You aren't solving that part of the situation, so you're likely not having any effect.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Their freedom to enforce copyright should not destroy my freedom to make full use of the capabilities of my personal computer.
Some laws are hard to enforce. Like drug laws. Police would have a much easier time enforcing such laws if they could enter and search anyone's house whenever they want. But that is just too much a sacrifice of personal freedom. So we accept a certain level of illegal activity in the name of personal freedom.
Same for copyright infringement. I paid for my computer, I should get full use out of it. You shouldn't be able to take that away from me, nor should you be able to install a peep-hole in the back of my hard drive, just because you are a content distributor.
If your business model is built on unenforceable laws, that is a flaw in your business model. Change THAT. Don't take away huge amounts of my freedom so you can enforce these laws.
DRM is everywhere so I made a list so you don't "sin" by mistake during the holly day: - Don't play games that have copy protection - Don't use commercial software - Don't watch DVDs - Don't listen to protected music (not even on your iPod) - Don't read protected e-books I for one have even stopped drinking Coke until they make the recipe open source.
I've been told "Get away from me you fucking dork" and "Get a life you pathetic loser". DRM awareness is fun!
I've seen this posted at various sites around the 'net for the last 3 weeks (at least). How did you all miss it?
Their 5 computer limit can be reached by the same computer.
First of all, very few people have to replace a hard drive five times. Second of all, nobody I'm aware of has EVER had to replace it five times in a single year. With the iTunes Store, you get one "wipe" of your authorizations per year.
From http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=930 14:
Plus, what are backups to non computer people? Doesn't the computer keep a backup of all my files after I format/reinstall/ get my computer back from Apple?
A CD getting scratched/sat upon/baked in the sun or a hard drive failure: guess which happens more frequently for the average consumer? Hint: it's not the hard drive failure. When you buy a CD, does the music store make a backup of that for you? Will they give you a free replacement if it gets broken? Didn't think so. They don't even warn you to make a backup. At least the iTunes store warns you to make a backup of your music as soon as you buy something; whether you actually do so or not is your decision.
If I bought a CD I can rip it as many times, and in what ever format I choose.
Yup, and if you buy a song from the iTunes Store, you can burn it to a CD-R, then rip it as many times and into whatever format you choose.
Quit spreading your FUD.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
For someone who has to "explain the concept of a surge protector" to more than one person, you're awfuly uneducated about that which you spout off.
1) 5 Computer simultaneously. You can choose to deauthorize your machines.
2) If all 5 computers are reached and you don't have access to others to deauthorize, you can batch unauthorize all of your machines once per year.
3) If you're explaining the concepts of surge protectors, why aren't you explaining the concept of backups? People will learn, but it isn't Apple's fault people don't do backups.
4) You can burn all your purchased music to CD
5) You can also resync your purchsed music from your iPod back to your computer.
A lot of Slashdot users are "content creators".
Many of them simply believe that they should not make money that's based on the restriction of the rights of users. If the restrictions on freedom were necessary to prevent something more horrible than the loss of freedom itself, that could be justifiable. But what are we protecting here? A supposed incentive for the creation of works? That's supposed to be more important than the freedom of people to handle data, share with their neighbor and enhance the state of the art?
You are using a government imposed law of user restriction that cannot even be called consensual because most people are too ignorant to understand it to make money, and basing a moral claim on that. Copyright law is not moral code, and its growing further from moral code with every new bill introduced to the world.
I suggest you cease to claim the moral high ground against your users, or switch to a different profession where you can make money morally, and not by restricting your users' freedom.
nt
sw5YRhw4ln3pr7$Ock1/4ma0u8Lw2Tm5l6/7DOiC5e6t4NSb6
Seriously, it's just DRM. It's not the end of the world, yet it's talked about forever and ever on Slashdot like it's the devil himself.
I used to be afraid of religious fundamentalists. Then I realised Slashdot fundamentalists are just as dangerous (if not worse). I'm willing to put up with some DRM to get what I want, otherwise I'd never have HL2 for example.
Seems like a lot of the problems people have with DRM aren't problems with DRM per se, they're problems with the DMCA and similar legislation to criminalize attempts to circumvent DRM. I agree, and so we should have a day against DMCA, not a day against DRM.
There are those who claim that DRM cannot work without legislation, but I don't think that's completely true. Yes, for music and video content you can work around DRM, but it is often difficult and the quality of the result may be inferior. And for games and software, DRM can work in theory. The new proposals for Trusted Computing could also strengthen DRM without requiring legislation.
We should work to oppose this kind of legislation as it expands into more countries, and eventually work to roll it back in the places where it has been passed. Perhaps more technically effective DRM will make it easier to remove the legislative crutch.
i personally handed out a hundred or so deffective by design pamphlets at the university of cincinnati today. we didn't set anything on fire. sadly, i didn't get arrested either. tho i am hopeful for next year.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
Guess what fanboi - Apple's DRM is AS BAD as Microsoft. ALL DRM IS BAD!!!!! The only people dumber than you are the Apple fanbois that modded you up. You're the type of idiot that would say Hitler is evil, but Stalin was an ok guy.
>If Apple at any time decides to shut down their iTunes devision all the music and videos you "bought" are now useless.
Not true, the keys on your computer will still allow the Music/Video/Whatever to be played. What will change, is that you will not be able to authorize a new computer.
You would need to be careful about backing up the key files, and be wary about upgrading your copy of iTunes (though if Apple dropped iTunes, it is unlikely they would bother releasing a new version).
As I got to work today on the subway, I saw city workers scraping blue Defective stickers off city street poles near the Apple store. What an effective message. Thanks for coming to our city to vandalize. Next time, stay home in your basement and listen to your Ogg. Nobody cares about your anti-DRM bullshit.
browsing from a public terminal in a hurry.. replying to your post to bookmark your link for later reading..have a nice day =)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
DRM can't expire: Eventually everything enters the public domain. No DRM system can automatically unlock things when that happens. If they did, it would be relatively easy to spoof the date and unlock the media. When all copies of a given piece of media are locked under DRM, you effectively create infinite copyright.
Nope. The encryption algorithms used in today's DRM schemes will most likely be crackable within microseconds, using 1. computer hardware 90+ years in the future; and 2. advances in cryptanalysis, also 90+ years from now. Crypto over the span of a whole century is a moot point; nothing to worry about.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
we should have a day against DMCA, not a day against DRM.
There's an even bigger problem with people blindly obeying silly laws without questioning their legitimacy. In most parts of the world, people simply ignore crappy laws they don't deem just. Yes, they get thrown in jails by those in power every now and then; but it's rather rare, because effectively, you can't jail 20% or more of the population: who would pay taxes then? In a democracy, civil disobedience shouldn't be needed; but do we really still live in a democracy, when outfits like Disney and RIAA can buy laws like DMCA?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I am a fairly conservative Republican who comes from a family of modest means and think campaigns for "living wage" policies are generally wrongheaded. I went to college with a bunch of people who were neither Republicans nor of modest means, and many of them were quite in favor of instituting a "living wage". They expressed this desire via sit-ins (lasting months) and, in one incident, stickering a few administration buildings -- on the bathroom mirrors, where they are most difficult to remove. Guess who ended up spending hours of their day removing the bathroom stickers? Hint: its not the kid who can afford $40k per year for tuition -- Tuesdays are his rally-for-Palestine, yo.
Similar stuff happened at hotels frequently. I spilled some cola at a reception once and immediately scurried off to the restroom to get paper towels to wipe it up. This required briefly abandoning the conversation I was in, and someone asked what the hurry was. I told him that there was cola on the floor, it was my fault, and if I did not hurry to clean it the floor would get sticky. He said "Oh, leave that for the help". So help me God, you have my permission to slug me if I ever have "the help".
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I found this a while ago helping my friend research web hosting companies:
http://dreamhost-sucks.com/
Scott Swezey
DRM is a complicated issue for sure. Many different opinions and ideas thrown back and forth, a lot of pros and cons (many cons) presented. In the end though, I have found a simple philosophy that I use to determine how to deal with DRM-protected content, and it is presented as follows:
If I *really* want something that is DRM-protected, there's no other way of (legitimately) getting said content, and any illegitimate versions of the content are substandard compared to the DRM-protected version (as in doesn't have the same features, is buggy, lower quality through media transfer, all depending on the type of content), then I'll have absolutely no qualms in get the DRM-protected version.
DRM is here to stay; we geeks/nerds are not powerful enough to stop that, mainstream society couldn't give a fuck, so we might as well accept it instead of fighting useless battles. Corporations rule the world now, let's not forget that. They make the rules.
(posted anon for obvious reasons - not trying to troll, merely describing the inevitable that few want to acknowledge)
It's very difficult (probably impossible) to create a technological protection thingy (i.e. a DRM scheme) which prevents exactly those uses that are legally infringing, and ONLY those uses that are legally infringing.
How will you like it when the law says you have a fair use right to copy a song under certain conditions, and the DRM prevents you from doing that?
You'll feel pretty stupid for buying it, huh?
The laws are not as precise as computer programs have to be. They require interpretation by human beings (the courts) and those human beings have some leeway in deciding what is reasonable and what isn't.
Also, the laws can be changed. If the law that governs what is infringing and what isn't was changed, how would you possibly update the DRM on all the works that were already sold? This is equivalent to the PKI key distribution problem (in other words, its a huge hassle). And what about companies that sold DRM songs and then went out of business? The customers who bought those songs are probably SOL.
DRM is just a bad idea. Consumers should reject it utterly. We don't need giant media conglomerates locking up all of our culture and making us pay multiple times to rent it back from them. Fuck them, its OUR CULTURE. We want it to be open.
Make sure you deauthorize your computer before you upgrade your RAM, hard disk or other system components. If you do not deauthorize your computer before you upgrade these components, one computer may use multiple authorizations. If you find you have reached 5 authorizations due to system upgrades, you can reset your authorization count by clicking Deauthorize All in the Account Information screen. Note: You may only use this feature once per year. The Deauthorize All button will not appear if you have fewer than 5 authorized computers or if you have used this option within the last 12 months.
Holy christ, and I thought activation with XP was bad. I realize Apple is going for the "average joe" consumer here, but wow - I can't think of a year where I haven't done 4 or 5 upgrades to a box. Not only that, but every time you want to test a new RAM stick out you have to make sure to de-authorize your music, much with the hardware, authorize your music again? Or if you don't do it every time, keep a record of every hardware change so that when you get close to 5 in a year, make darn sure you do?
Seriously, for all of you out there who say "Apple's DRM is hardly noticable"...? You must not be tinkerers in the slightest. I think I replaced 3 hard drives in my main tower since June.
I couldn't imagine having to bugger with my music collection every time I wanted to futz with something. I just boot my machine, and music plays.
Actual live, breathing geeks put up with this sort of nonsense? Do you jump through the activation hoops with XP as well?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Oh, yes, thank you, massah. No, I won't be messin no mo' wit my com-pyoo-tuh, no sir. Yes, massah, here's my credit card. Thank you, massah.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
This is the post I shall reply to, one that correctly notices that Copyright, *as it now is*, is not the same Copyright from 1790's.
... should be a good thing. I personally like the "distribute the studio tracks as loss leaders, and make it up in concerts" approach. I'd like someone to find a way to make that model work.
Copyright now essentially means "you will never see a work created after 1925 enter the public domain, ever." There was a rumor that the prior copyright extension act of 1998 was "the Disney copyright law", because their entire empire risked crumbling to dust in 10 years as their most famous pantheon of characters entered public domain.
Before the digital age, Libraries and "SchoolGround/Work" networks were Good Things, because Exposure is still the key problem for new creative artists. Copying a tape took the full hour necessary to play it, so except for some kid who spent all of October 1984 copying Michael Jackson for every one of his friends, the exposure far outweighed the "purchase damage". Yes, RIAA and friends wailed against copyable tapes, but the force of the public slammed that one through.
Libraries were considered noble. You got to borrow X object for 3 weeks, and I for one so heavily played the daylights out of that rented tape that I had no need to buy it if i had the entire album memorized. "Oops, it's been 6 months, let's rent it again". What new DRM has a THREE WEEK period extendible up to about 5 times??
DRM as currently envisioned of course unduly limits the Fair Use as noted elsewhere. But what these discussions NEED to be about is changing the REVENUE model entirely. Some huge percentage of artists simply wither under the weight of obscurity... even with free promotions, simply being discovered takes time. So accelerated exposure, via the p2p nets,
The only revenue calculations we should worry about is "the Artist". Someone take a standard "solid" contract, calculate the ACTUAL $ they expect to receive, and begin brainstorming how to meet that figure in other ways. I simply don't know the magic target figure to go after. Not counting a superstar, how much does a "lower B-Midlist" artist make in real dollars per album before tours? I'm thinking about all kinds of alternative funding approaches these days.
The Preview Word for this comment is motive.
--TaoPhoenix
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I'm all for protesting against current DRM, but I wish they would at least pick a quote which isn't as open to interpretation as "If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed." To me, that is the perfect approach to dealing with copyright infringements. Think about it, if the end user is totally unaware of it, forever, then it hasn't interfered with anything they want to do as a consumer. If the only time it inhibits them is when they stop being a consumer of the copyrighted material and start using the material in an illegal way.
I have no idea what the true intentions of the quoted Disney executive was, but I find it depressing when those fighting for the same goals as me use quotes and arguments like these. Every weak argument in a debate only strengthens the oppositions position.
Control is not in the hands of the consumer, nor in the hands of the producer: it's in the hands of the DRM controller.
At the moment, when I buy a CD I can listen to it on any CD player I like, when I like, how I like. I can play it in my car,
at home, on my PC... I can shift it onto another format, even though this is not a legally protected right in the UK (we have
no concept of fair use over here).
I have a large legal MP3 library that I have personally ripped. I like being able to play that on my MP101 in the living room, or on my PC, or wherever I choose. I've bought the music, it's mine to listen to how I want. I don't want to share it with the world, put it on any open network, or let it out of my control but I do want to be able to use it in a way that pleases me.
DRM removes the facilities and convenience that technology has given me, all on the risk that I might use the technology to infringe copyright.
Besides all that, DRM is destined to fail. Ultimately, the music has to be heard or the pictures displayed, and at that point they can be recorded without any DRM and that is what will be on the file sharing networks of the world. There is no way of stopping that, so they might as well stop spending money trying to push water uphill and trust their customers!
There is no expiry of DRM - there is expiry of copyright... The British LIbrary's manifesto is a good start, but I'd personally like to see fair use written in there too.
FSFE launched http://DRM.info, and participated in various activities for Day Against DRM.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
You get a call from a non technical friend about how to get rid of that popup that says " Copying this CD is a copyright violation " with a "cancel" button.
Of Course, by then it will be too late.
Whe it comes to DRM, I'm not entirely of the opinion that DRM is entirely a Bad Thing(tm). I think that in Apples case, there's enough in the product to ensure that a person using it has fair use. i.e. in iTunes, you can burn your songs to a traditional CD format which can then be ripped to anything you like.
I think it's not so much the DRM which is bad, it's the way it's being used and the people who are using it. For instance in Napsters case, I believe DRM is being used to enforce a subscription model where the user never owns the music they download and loses it as soon as they stop subscribing. Then there's the RIAA and the MPAA who see DRM as a tool which they can use to control the one channel of distribution that they currently don't fully control (the internet) so that they can continue to take advantage of artists and consumers.
I think that Apple have always used software to sell their hardware and if iTunes were to start selling vanilla MP3s iPod sales would, inevitably, take a hit. So they've arrived at the happy medium - just enough DRM to package the iPod product with the iTunes service into a Solution (I'm pwning the marketing-speak!) without completely removing the right to own the music and to make copies of it.
If people stuck to buying their music for what they want the play it on, then DRM wouldn't be a problem. Complaining that you brought a song from site x and it won't work on device y is a bit like saying I brought this CD, it works fine on my CD player but I can't get it to play on the turntable at my grandparents house.
Blazing Spiders
Shouldn't everyday be The Day Against DRM?
- Roxio decides that it's sick of throwing money at unprofitable Napster and shuts it down. The music you paid for no longer works since it can't phone home.
- You buy a song to listen to on your iPod but you later decide you like iRivers better. Now you get to buy the song again.
- You buy a song and decide you don't like it and want to sell it to somebody else on eBay who might enjoy it. Possible with a CD. Not with DRM'ed tracks.
- You buy a new computer and suddenly none of your music works anymore. You have to buy it all again.
That's just off the top of my head. DRM sucks. The media distributors need to remember what they are: distributors. Most people would pay money to receive a professionally ripped track on a high-speed pipe rather than try to download a low-bitrate track with audio artifacts from some hack in a dorm room in Timbuktu.Provide value, and people will pay for it.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
And the writer of that blog seems to be wearing an awful lot of tinfoil, too.
... Do the programs you use implement the TPM in such a manner as to restrict your usage? If so, why run those programs? OS X currently makes no use of it, so if that changes, just skip the next OS X upgrade or stop using the updated apps that start using it in an offensive way. Until then, you're just complaining about scenarios that don't even exist yet.
Since it was a *known* fact that developer Macs shipped with the TPM hardware in place when they moved to Intel chips, I'm not sure why anyone is shocked or surprised that it wasn't removed by the time they went to production?
As someone posted a reply comment about on that blog page, *virtualization* is one possible reason to make use of a TPM chip. Maybe Apple is interested in utilizing it to get Windows compatibility seamlessly running inside the next release of OS X?
Ultimately, it *still* comes down to software
DRM has become RMS's answer to the War on Terror.
People are going to say that if the FSF do some genuine good with this, then I shouldn't be saying such terrible things...but I think more of us around here have been waking up to Stallman's own veiled autocratic tendencies over the last year or so.
Bush has used the War on Terror to keep people divided and scared, and as an excuse to reprimand anyone who dares question him via the old canard that solidarity must be shown to the Commander in Chief during wartime.
It's interesting...I only just thought of it then, but in reply to a post I made a few weeks ago, one of the FSF attack bots on here actually *did* use that as grounds for reprimanding me...calling me "idiotic," and then going on to mention how RMS was our potential saviour from that dire and persistent bogeyman, DRM. Now that I think of it, it does remind me a lot of the attitude that's been promoted in the US; that Bush must be continually held utterly above reproach because he is supposedly all that stands between the rest of humanity and a group of swarthy, turban-clad phantoms who customarily reside primarily under beds and in dark closets.
It would make a lot of sense for Stallman to want to create an impression among Linux users that they need to be at war with the corporate world, though...People who are scared have a much greater tendency to look for a singular individual to take care of them in a parental sense, and are willing to hand said individual an accordingly high level of authority, pretty much without question.
As we all know however, authority and control are the very last things our Messiah wants. He's dedicated purely and solely to fighting ceaselessly for our FREEDOM. We mustn't ever criticise him or question anything he says in any way, because if we do that, our division will be exploited by the evil corporations that are eternally lurking, waiting, semi-invisibly in the shadows, who will pounce and devour our still-beating hearts directly from our chests.
I seem to remember the word freedom also coming up rather a lot in a certain inauguration speech I heard recently. The similarities between situations are purely coincidental, of course.
Then why does Apple's DRM still only work with their products?
They use it for vendor lock-in. They love it.
Stop giving them a pass because they're Apple.
In my opinion, the "manifesto" (*PDF) published recently by the British Libarary, and called to my attention by this GrokLaw story, on the subject of DRM, best explains how DRM is harmful to our culture, and inconsistent with our tradition of creativity, from which tradition we may distill the adage nihil sub solum novum.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I'm not complaining about scenarios, real or imagined.
I'm suggesting that the parent's underlying attitude--"Apple is coolness; they couldn't possibly, really, like teh evilness":
is fanboy dumb.
I'm posting this on a Mac I use every day. I'm not anti-Apple. I'm anti-stupidity.
The intentions here may be good, but the execution is nearly at hypocritical levels.
What else could you expect from a FSF/Richard Stallman operation? (Did I get the organisation slash thing right Mr. Stallman? I wrote your organization first. "You forgot to write GNU/FSF/me is the greatest ever!" Ow! Stop hitting me. I will do better next time, I promise.)
How many players do have DRM support? I haven't kept up with the news lately, but I thought the RIAA companies never managed to get a standard going. Are you telling me if I buy one of these obscure brand name MP3 players (ignore the apple ones and such), they all have some sort of DRM?
And, you might also notice, I *am* the parent poster.... And no, I don't think I'm a "fanboy", nor was my point that Apple is "so cool, they can't do anything evil or wrong".
My point was, looking at the whole situation rationally, it makes plenty of sense why the first company trying to create a digital online music store would have to make concessions with the recording industry, or else be stuck in a "rut" of only having unknown, independent-label bands to offer. Apple happened to be that first company.
Recent studies/surveys are showing that most music people listen to on their iPods does *not* come from iTunes music store -- so Apple is certainly benefiting financially from iPod sales, even among people who don't want to buy their digital music.
Like someone else already posted though, DRM is firmly entrenched with media purchases already. Show me a single commercial DVD you can buy today that isn't CSS protected. Even back in the glory days of VHS tape, they usually put silly Macrovision copy protection on them. And we all know software vendors have been trying to enforce copy-protection schemes on computer and console games for YEARS. In a way, all that's happened is the protection scheme has gotten a lot more intelligent about who the owner is. Instead of trying to trip up everyone possessing the media so they can't make "unauthorized copies", now they track *who* made the purchase and extend a set of specific usage rights to them that they won't interfere with.
If it weren't for the fact that they're limiting *where* the purchased media can be played as well as regulating its duplication, I doubt most people would even care. And I could see that restriction going away or being relaxed quite a bit if most music sales shift to the digital realm. To the recording industry, all of this is still pretty new stuff.