Kindle, Zune DRM Restrictions Coming Into Focus

It's not news that the media you buy for both Kindle and Zune are protected by DRM. Readers are sending in stories of some of the ramifications of that fact. First, Absentminded-Artist notes an account at Gear Diary recounting what an Amazon rep told one user about download limits on Kindle books. "One facet of the Kindle's DRM has reared an ugly head: download limitations. Upgraded your iPhone recently? Bought a new Kindle? You may not be able to reload your entire library. There's an unadvertised flag: 'You mean when you go to buy the book it doesn't say "this book can be downloaded this number of times" even though that limitation is there?' To which [the rep] replied, 'No, I'm very sorry it doesn't.'" Next, reader Rjak writes "DRM is a bad idea, poorly implemented. One of the many many valid reasons to drop Zune and its marketplace is the DRM validation error you see below. The vast majority of the music I had purchased last year is completely gone. There's no refund, the music doesn't exist on the service anymore, the files are just garbage now. Here's the error (screen capture): 'This item is no longer available at Zune Marketplace. Because of this, you can no longer play it or sync it with your Zune. There might be another iteration of it available in Zune Marketplace.'" Update: 06/23 00:28 GMT by KD : The Gear Diary blog has been updated with what may be more definitive information from Amazon on how the Kindle DRM behaves.

Comments

When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[eldavojohn]

DRM has not been implemented correctly to date. While you might hope that your iTunes or Kindle--being a popular product--will have flawless DRM that will not inhibit you, this is simply not the case. It's always just a time bomb waiting to go off in your face.

If you gotta buy digital books or music, don't fall for any DRM scheme. Here's an example that even the biggest digital retailers can't get it right. I await a flawless DRM that will work on multiple pieces of hardware--hardware that I choose! I fear I will be waiting for quite some time ...

And please, I'm sick of responses to my posts with some snide remark that you don't have DRM and yours is free with a link to the Pirate Bay. It's getting old. I want to support the content providers but I don't want to give up or inhibit my rights to access that content.

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[Shadow of Eternity]

Buy it once, use the pirated copy thereafter. After all you're purchasing a "license" and a "service" not a product, so all that matters is the license.

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[Stormwatch]

DRM has not been implemented correctly to date.

The idea is almost zen. How to screw the user yet not screw the user?

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[beelsebob]

iTunes
You mean that totally 100% DRM free music service?

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[causality]

If you gotta buy digital books or music, don't fall for any DRM scheme. Here's an example that even the biggest digital retailers can't get it right. I await a flawless DRM that will work on multiple pieces of hardware--hardware that I choose! I fear I will be waiting for quite some time ...

Collectively, we generally don't appreciate and value what you describe there. The minority who does is probably small enough to be marginalized, though it does appear to be growing. That's the reason why (at least in the USA) it's so difficult to use any cellphone with any carrier's network, or why the most widely-used office software doesn't actively try to produce documents in a format that any other office software can use. There are many other examples.

And please, I'm sick of responses to my posts with some snide remark that you don't have DRM and yours is free with a link to the Pirate Bay. It's getting old. I want to support the content providers but I don't want to give up or inhibit my rights to access that content.

Just as you have your frustrations with that, the phenomenon itself is born of a frustration with the media companies and their refusal to work with us instead of against us. That refusal is why the very interoperability you describe is not the norm. I will neither defend nor condemn piracy, but I will say that it sums up to a "fuck them then" sort of reaction that, from the perspective of human nature, is rather understandable or at least predictable. The media companies seriously believe that they can view their customers as a resource that they may take for granted, like so much lumber or iron ore.

They believe they can do so with impunity, and if not for piracy, they would mostly be correct. Again I am not going to say whether it's right or wrong, only that the very companies which complain about piracy have done much to set the stage for it and to create the ill will that makes people feel justified when they infringe these copyrights. No one does anything unless they believe, verily or falsely, that it is the right thing to do, or at least that it is wrong but either justifiable or serves some kind of greater good. Those snide remarks you mention come from this sense of feeling justified, though of course there are better expressions of the same sentiment.

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[oneirophrenos]

Buy it once, use the pirated copy thereafter. After all you're purchasing a "license" and a "service" not a product, so all that matters is the license.

I don't understand why you would pay for DRM-infested products, if you don't even intend to use them after purchase. What you are effectively doing there is rewarding the company for making user-unfriendly products. It might seem the "moral" thing to do, but it really just enables the company to remain "immoral" and continue with their anti-consumer policies.

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[TheSpoom]

DRM has not been implemented correctly to date.

Are you crazy?

There IS no correct implementation of DRM.

When a manufacturer puts DRM into a device, it means they want to control the device even when they no longer own it. And that means that at best, you're renting the device with a one time charge that they call a "purchase"... at worst, they're just laughing at you behind your back because you gave them money for nothing.

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter. If you bought the CD, you have the right in the US under the fair use clause to download it.

Really? Could you point me to the case that was decided that set the precedent for this? After all, issues like this in US law are based on precedent. Or failing that, can you point me to the exact phrase in the clause that unambiguously gives me the right to download copyrighted works if I already have a license for them?

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[Whillowhim]

I completely disagree. Buying an item you don't intend to actually use is sending the wrong message. You're rewarding the book publishers for their insane DRM when you should be discouraging them.

Finding pirated books can be a pain in the ass. If they're going to force me to spend time looking for a copy with bad proofreading and odd line-breaks, I'm going to ask for a refund on the money I spent on the book. Or better yet, just not spend it in the first place. Its not that I'm unwilling to buy ebooks, its that I value my time and spending 10-60 minutes looking through various websites/peer to peer applications is more valuable to me than the cost of the book in the first place.

And for the record, I've spent just under $1000 at Baen's online store over the last 3 years, because the books there are unencumbered by DRM and are easy to find and buy. I'm more than willing to buy books if I'm given a fair deal. It just seems that a lot of book publishers are so scared by the piracy boogieman that they piss off their real customers.

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[nine-times]

Sorry, but it doesn't really (technically) work that way. When you buy the CD, you haven't bought any rights to anything. You've just bought the CD. According to copyright, you have no right to copy that CD. Fair use says that you can copy that CD, so long as it's copied in certain ways for for certain purposes.

Where this has gotten confusing is that when you "buy" a song online, what you've really bought it a license to copy that song under additional circumstances not normally granted under fair use. Of course, that license probably has terms in it that say the online store can revoke the license and deny you access to that song at any time for any reason.

For this reason, I think someone should really sue these companies for false advertising or deceptive practices (IANAL, so I don't know what you would technically sue them for). Companies using DRM shouldn't be allowed to advertise that they're "selling" music, and they shouldn't be permitted to use the word "buy". Instead of "buy", they should be forced to use words like "rent" or "license". And the terms of the license should be in simple language and displayed prominently, not just when you first install or run the software.

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[Kell Bengal]

This is precisely why I -don't- buy CDs anymore. I used to faithfully buy CDs from a band published through EMI. I play all my music from my PC and it's Very Fine (TM) sound system I spent a bunch of cash putting together. I do not own a stereo. One day, I bought the latest CD by this band and was surprised and confused as to why it stubbornly refused to play... turned out that EMI had put some copyprotection shit on the CD that resolutely refused to work with my CD playing software.

Now, I'm technically literate so it was a simple thing to rip the CD bit-wise and produce lossless files from it and burn them to a CD, but I was so incensed by the whole experience that I swore an oath never to buy from EMI again, nor any company that put protection on its CDs. I PAID for that CD, dammit - I did the right thing because I wanted to support what they were doing. And yet I, the person who actually paid cash for it, was the one who couldn't enjoy it while Teh Evul Piratez could.

Not only was their copy protection a waste of time, it was also lost them a faithful customer.

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[easyTree]

When you buy the CD, you haven't bought any rights to anything. You've just bought the CD. According to copyright, you have no right to copy that CD.

Really though; who cares? If the law is out-of-synch with reality, should I play along? I think not... Do what's *right* not what's legal. You'll cause less damage / hurt less people and be much happier.

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[KeithIrwin]

Unfortunately, this isn't really correct. The way the copyright law is written, you're not buying a license, you're buying a copy. This has several implications. The first is that you don't necessarily have the right to duplicate it onto your portable player, you car mp3 player, etc. Although most people suspect that the courts would rule this to be fair use, this has never been established. If the music were licensed, it would say specifically whether or not this were allowed and would most likely have to allow it to get consumers to buy it. The second is that you don't have to destroy copies upon transfer of ownership. So when you sell your mp3 player, you don't have to erase it. Or if you make a copy of something to discuss it in class (education and critical fair use) you aren't required to destroy it once you're done discussing it.

Now, what's been happening is that the media companies (RIAA, MPAA, BSA) don't like the second implication of this. So they tell people that they aren't buying a copy, but only a license. This is nonsense. You don't need a license to read a book you've bought and you don't need a license to play an mp3 you bought. If you went to the grocer and he told you he was selling you a license to eat an apple and then handed you an apple, you'd correctly assume that he was being silly and just consider yourself the owner of the apple. This is the same thing which is happening with digital music files. They may say "I'm selling you a license", but what they've actually given you is a copy. You own that copy. It's fixed on your hard-drive, which you own. They may in some cases argue that they can attach a license to that purchase to restrict what you can do with your copy, but they're selling you a copy, not a license.

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[youngone]

*sigh* Sad isn't it? There you are, faithfully buying the music of your favourite band, and then enjoying it in whatever way suits you when you run headlong into Corporate Greed and Stupidity. That's pretty much why DRM will never work. What you want is pretty much in direct oppposition to what EMI (in this case) wants.

Hate to say this, but...

[nausea_malvarma]

Honestly, if you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to buy a zune or kindle. Boycotts are the only way these companies are gonna learn that customers won't tolerate DRM.

Re:Hate to say this, but...

[causality]

I have no problem with DRM until it stops me from being able to use my media legally as I see fit. If a DRM scheme somehow prevented me from giving a file to my friends, but let me listen to the song on my ipod, Sansa, or Zune as I wished, that'd be perfectly okay. I don't mind buying products/services/licenses. The DRM that is demonized is the DRM that preemptively treats you like a criminal and unfairly restricts your usage of a PRODUCT THAT YOU PAID FOR THE USAGE OF.

Your post makes it sound like DRM is bad. BAD DRM is bad. Whether or not it can be effectively implemented is another issue; I know you couldn't magically detect the difference between a new media player and a friend's thumb drive.

All DRM is in fact bad because all DRM carries the assumption that you are incapable of doing the right thing and thus, must be actively prevented from doing the wrong thing. A DRM scheme that prevents you from giving a file to your friends is treating you like a criminal because the assumption behind it is that you WOULD give it to your friends -- they are so certain that you would do this, that they paid programmers to design a system to prevent it. To say that this restriction doesn't bother you because you wouldn't do that anyway misses the point. The point is that your morality means absolutely nothing if you have no ability to be immoral. To support any form of DRM is akin to saying that they are right to treat their customers in this adversarial, dehumanizing fashion.

DRM is power. It's power to control markets, to micromanage customers, to dictate obsolescence, and to hold content hostage. It's a power that comes with no concept of due process or innocent until proven guilty. It's a power that is "justified" by the fact that media companies have chosen not to create a business model suitable for the Information Age, which is no justification at all. It's a power that was not given to the companies willingly, but rather was one that they have taken for themselves. It was born not of overwhelming customer demand, but rather, a desire to control.

DRM is also a sad alternative to restoring the balance that once existed between the temporary monopoly granted by copyright and the benefit of society. Copyright was once only twelve years in duration, and this was when a mechanical printing press was the most technologically advanced method of distribution. We now have the ability to create and sell many more copies of a work in twelve years than we ever could have done before, yet copyright now has a ridiculous duration that has no concept of balance. It is plainly evident that you are dealing with people who are never going to be satisfied, for whom enough is never going to be enough.

The reason why so many no longer respect copyright is because it is no longer respectable. Those who choose to respect it anyway give it a benefit of doubt that the media companies are not willing to extend to their customers. Restoring the balance that once existed could create a world where people again respect copyright because they can see that it is reasonable and good. Such people would not want to infringe it, and thus, would need no restraints to prevent them from doing so. The fact that this simple, self-evident truth is so hard for so many to imagine is evidence enough that we have gone too far down this negative path that we are on. More DRM, no matter how benign, could only take us farther down that path.

Eating their cake and having it too

[Shadow of Eternity]

DRM is a fundamentally broken concept. It relies on the argument that you're purchasing a service and not a product, but then you're treated as though you purchased a product and not a service. In effect what's happening is that the consumer expends money and then literally has no rights whatsoever and, thanks to TOS/EULAs, no recourse either.

Euphamism?

[causality]

It's not news that the media you buy for both Kindle and Zune are protected by DRM.

I hope it doesn't sound like too minor of a gripe, but I greatly prefer to call it encumbered by DRM.

Re:Euphamism?

[YesIAmAScript]

I hope it doesn't sound like too minor of a gripe, but I greatly prefer to call it encumbered by DRM.

I prefer to call it infested with DRM.

Re:Euphamism?

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

Perhaps you shouldn't. When you say infested by DRM you have made an unnecessarily combative statement as though accusing the producers of something heinous. Granted, you are right, but it makes it harder to carry on a discourse with people who aren't already aligned with your view of thinking. Ditto for almost every alternative to Digital Rights Management listed on the GNU website. I particularly like "Digital Shackles" as a proposed alternative. I mean really? It just makes the whole conversation less civil and people more likely to dismiss your views as those of a zealot.

F*ck DRM! F*ck it right in its stupidd a55!

[jtownatpunk.net]

The first thing I do when I download media with DRM these days is strip the DRM. If I can't figure out how to strip it before I lay down my money, I pass. DRM does nothing to enhance my experience and can only serve to detract from my experience.

Back 7 or 8 years ago, when ebooks were making their first surge, I bought about $50 worth from various vendors and didn't strip the DRM. It was a bit of an experiment to see how it would turn out. One of the vendors shut down just weeks after I made my purchase. I hadn't even activated one of the titles yet so it was a total loss. The other one was only readable as long as that computer lived. Same happened with the rest of the titles eventually. So $50 worth of ebooks I purchased just a few years ago are gone forever. Meanwhile, paperbacks I purchased when I was a kid still work just as well as the day I bought them. Nevermind the hassle of keeping track of each vendor's authentication system and the crap-ton of different software packages I had to install to handle all of those methods.

The funny thing is this isn't even the first time a major online music "seller" has screwed people by revoking access to purchased media. Wasn't it just a few years ago that some big seller shut down or changed their authentication system and the users got a big FU for all of their lost music?

Update to the Amazon story

[BlackCreek]

Amazon reps got in contact with the guy.... They simply don't a have a clue of what happens, and may try to change policy. Worth a read...

http://www.geardiary.com/2009/06/21/kindlegate-confusion-abounds-regarding-kindle-download-policy/#more-34458

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?$1.9M FINE

[Nom du Keyboard]

Buy it once, use the pirated copy thereafter. After all you're purchasing a "license" and a "service" not a product, so all that matters is the license.

Jamie Thomas just got fined $1.9M for having files on her computer that were never proven to be shared with anyone unauthorized (MediaSentry is a fully authorized download) and owned all the CD's of the songs in question. So just what did she purchase?