RIAA Spokesman Says DRM Is Dead

I already said resistance was futile... by ls671 · 2009-07-20 00:05 · Score: 1

Well DRM was definitely a form of resistance to a movement ... ;-)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1293953&cid=28604363&art_pos=34

--
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.

Re:I already said resistance was futile... by davester666 · 2009-07-20 05:26 · Score: 3, Informative

What's funny about this is somebody (Microsoft) just launched another music store in Europe, not only with DRM, but also with varying terms for individual songs.
And now there's a push by font makers to get browsers to include DRM for web-downloadable fonts.
And the news industry just came out with specs for what amounts to a wacky DRM system that they want Google and everybody else that displays content to implement.
And the video industry is still wishing the clue-train away.
There are still a lot of groups that believe the bigger the wall they build between you and what you want means you'll pay more for it because it's more exclusive.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!

DRM is dead? by ethorad · 2009-07-20 00:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Perhaps he means it as in:

DRM is dead!

Long live DRM!

Re:DRM is dead? by RichardJenkins · 2009-07-20 00:15 · Score: 4, Funny

No, actually the whole thing doesn't make sense when taken out of context. What he actually said was
"DRM is dead, isn't it? *wink* *wink*
Re:DRM is dead? by sinrakin · 2009-07-20 00:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's exactly how I interpreted it too. DRM: "the rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated".
Re:DRM is dead? by 91degrees · 2009-07-20 00:39 · Score: 1

Since it has been shown that removing DRM increases their profits, that would suggest that they have an overwhelming desire to implement DRM, even at the expense of their own profits.

considering the RIAA's raison d'etre is to preserve the interests (i.e. profits) of its members, why would they want it back?
Re:DRM is dead? by drinkypoo · 2009-07-20 00:42 · Score: 1

Insightful or funny? You decide. I figure what he meant was "DRM isn't really an issue for consumers, so we don't need to do anything." But of course, the current situation with DRM involves the DMCA; It might as well have been called the DRMA. DRM is a serious problem for consumers so long as the DMCA is allowed to stand. Our record in eliminating legislation is not too good in this country. I know that in my state you can't remove a law until there's already two other redundant pieces of legislation (e.g. the so-called assault weapon bans in California.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:DRM is dead? by master5o1 · 2009-07-20 00:49 · Score: 1

Digital Resource Management Act

Whenever I see RMA I think of the Resource Management Act.

--
signature is pants
Re:DRM is dead? by Kreigaffe · 2009-07-20 00:51 · Score: 1

... wait, what? I'm afraid I don't understand that last part in the least, but it sure sounds like lawmakers passed a law that essentially states their infallibility. please tell me there's some sort of misunderstanding here. Even the Pope, the voice of god on fucking earth, has apologized for mistakes.

--
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
Re:DRM is dead? by Artifakt · 2009-07-20 01:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

I know you meant that as a rhetorical question, but actually, there's a sort of answer. Looking at the media industries, there's been a real pattern of people putting kinds of abstract scoring ahead of profits.
Here's a few examples:
1. Roger Corman - this director made a huge number of very low budget films, all of which made substantial profits. There were several periods where you could take the financials on Corman's last 10 films, compare them with the same numbers for every director in the entire studio system, and for every single Hollywood studio, it would have made a lot more sense to hire Corman and hand him 30 million dollars with very loose, few strings attached contracts, and most likely get 10 more films out of it that would probably gross 100 million plus at the box office, than to risk that 30 million on a single big budget epic with any other director, given those director's reputation for expensive flops. But that didn't happen.
2. Gold and Platinum records - as sales have declined, the number of copies needed to score a gold or platinum has been repeatedly changed so the studios can brag (maybe to their stockholders, since these figures invariably get quoted in the stock prospectus) that they are getting more platinum sales than ever, even though the actual sales numbers are down.
3. Planet of the Apes (the original films): Hollywood dropped the budget lower on each one of the four sequels, and all still made a huge truckload of money. That money went to fund big budget epics (Cleopatra for one), which got Oscars but didn't make their costs back. Despite the sequels making as much money as the original or more, the 'wisdom' of the industry was that sequels never make as much as the original picture, even with the Apes counterexample starting them in the face. The industry didn't revise this position until after Cameron's Aliens.
4. The Monkees: When these four actors responded to criticism that they weren't real musicians by learning to play at least moderately well and trying to do live performances for the press to prove it, their industry handlers didn't recognize this was the four being team players. The industry inside reps made public statements that their own clients couldn't play a note, which was both untrue and practically a guarantee of lost record sales, but as those same people actually wrote, 'it kept them in line for a time'. The Monkees final period, with the film 'Head' and the open statements about LSD on an album back cover, seem pretty solidly anti profit. But, the period before that seems to about be the band focusing on the bottom line, and the studio heads losing all sight of it until the band got burned out.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:DRM is dead? by mcgrew · 2009-07-20 02:09 · Score: 0, Flamebait

DRM was stillborn, but its mother didn't realize that. DRM is dumber than a kid with Down's Syndrome, but the RIAA execs are even dumber, believing the snake-oil programmers who HAVE to know that there's no way DRM can work.
Blind and crippled, DRM was too stupid to remember to breathe. Let the poor thang rest in peace.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:DRM is dead? by yanyan · 2009-07-20 02:11 · Score: 1

Or until we nuke it from orbit. After all, that's the only way to be sure.
Re:DRM is dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 02:38 · Score: 1, Funny

Blind and crippled, DRM was too stupid to remember to breathe. Let the poor thang rest in peace.
No, please, let it rest in horrible, horrible torture, like it deserves.
Re:DRM is dead? by dasunt · 2009-07-20 03:13 · Score: 0

1. Roger Corman - this director made a huge number of very low budget films, all of which made substantial profits. There were several periods where you could take the financials on Corman's last 10 films, compare them with the same numbers for every director in the entire studio system, and for every single Hollywood studio, it would have made a lot more sense to hire Corman and hand him 30 million dollars with very loose, few strings attached contracts, and most likely get 10 more films out of it that would probably gross 100 million plus at the box office, than to risk that 30 million on a single big budget epic with any other director, given those director's reputation for expensive flops. But that didn't happen.
If you are a young studio executive who wants to make it big, is it better to be responsible for one major blockbuster, or for a string of mediocre films that make money most of the time, with a few noteworthy flops?
Re:DRM is dead? by WankersRevenge · 2009-07-20 03:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Not that I disagree with your overall points but you should know that Cleopatra was made in 1963 whereas the first Planet of the Apes was made in 1968.
Re:DRM is dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 03:40 · Score: 0

Congratulations, you just restated his point... which was:

Looking at the media industries, there's been a real pattern of people putting kinds of abstract scoring ahead of profits.
Re:DRM is dead? by MrKaos · 2009-07-20 03:53 · Score: 1

Long live DRM!
So I don't get to say 'Ding Dong, DRM is dead, DRM is dead' yet?

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Re:DRM is dead? by nine-times · 2009-07-20 03:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

These are all very interesting examples, but I don't think it's unique to media. The dirty little truth that a lot of people don't like to admit because it sounds ant-capitalist is, we often don't really do our work for the money. Watch your boss and your coworkers and anyone else you can, and you'll find lots of examples where people essentially make decisions that are against their own economic best-interest in order to give themselves ego-boosts. Or inversely, you'll see people refuse to do things that will obviously benefit them if it means eating crow.
You can see it even more strongly in cases where the decision-maker doesn't directly benefit from the decisions. A salaried worker, for example, might often do things which will hurt the company's profits in order to boost his ego. What does he care, if he doesn't see the profits? On the other hand, I've seen salaried workers do a lot of work to boost company profits without economic benefit to themselves, essentially because it gave them bragging rights and pride in their work.
Now someone might very well argue that these examples don't show what I'm saying. You might argue that having prestige in the industry can give you more clout within the industry, allowing you to sign bigger actors, directors, musicians, etc. Making a prestige picture can be justified as an investment, allowing you to make more money down the line by attracting better people.
Still, in my professional experienced, the generally assumed idea that "companies always do what's most profitable" hasn't seemed to be reliable at all. An executive on an ego trip can make all sorts of unprofitable policies just to throw his own weight around.
Re:DRM is dead? by Mister+Whirly · 2009-07-20 04:14 · Score: 1

2. Gold and Platinum records - as sales have declined, the number of copies needed to score a gold or platinum has been repeatedly changed so the studios can brag (maybe to their stockholders, since these figures invariably get quoted in the stock prospectus) that they are getting more platinum sales than ever, even though the actual sales numbers are down.
Not sure what you are basing this on, as the only thing that has ever changed about gold and platinum record numbers are they went from value of retail sales sold to number of actual records sold. The number required as of 2009 is still 500,000 for gold and 1,000,000 for platinum - which have been the same since the 60s. (The numbers may be slightly different for other countries, but I am assuming we are talking about the US rules as the RIAA is based in the US.) See here or here for my sources.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:DRM is dead? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2009-07-20 04:28 · Score: 1

DRM was stillborn, but its mother didn't realize that
But it is *far* from dead. Videos for example are very often DRMed (be it on a physical media or streamed), and new standards seem to come with more and more DRM. DRM is still a big threat.
"I'm dead, stop fighting me. Leave me alone".
This is the same trick pulled by Communism. I hope it doesn't succeed as well.
Re:DRM is dead? by Splab · 2009-07-20 04:47 · Score: 1

Don't blame the programmer, I for one spent 3 hours today telling an executive that the path he was choosing wouldn't work and lead to tons of headaches, as a programmer I can only give him my best advice, if he chooses to ignore it there's nothing I can do (other than keeping a paper trail).
Re:DRM is dead? by skeeto · 2009-07-20 05:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

They might be trying to abandon the name "DRM" because it has become so stained, and replace it with a new name. Stardock was trying to do this, saying they don't use DRM, but something called "Goo" (just DRM by another name). Valve too, claiming "DRM is obsolete", then using something called CEG, which is just more DRM.
Re:DRM is dead? by PRMan · 2009-07-20 05:46 · Score: 1

Simple example.
PG movies on average outearn R movies, but there are more R movies made than PG movies.
What sense does that make? Because you can't be a "gritty" filmmaker without "pushing the limits", whatever that means.
Meanwhile, Disney is a giant corporation and, other than that, my kids have very little to watch.

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:DRM is dead? by mcgrew · 2009-07-20 06:16 · Score: 1

I should have said "programming team" (Including your pointy-haired boss). But that is one advantage as well as a disadvantage of much open source: no PHBs.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:DRM is dead? by Gilmoure · 2009-07-20 06:29 · Score: 1

I was wondering just how creative the accounting was on this.

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:DRM is dead? by nine-times · 2009-07-20 06:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually that's not a great example. There are rated R movies that out-earn PG movies all the time. What's more, even if that weren't the case, you could explain it via market segmentation. If everyone only released PG movies, then there would be a huge market for more adult entertainment that would be going untapped.
Now you may be right that media companies aren't exploiting children's entertainment in the most profitable way-- I don't know. I'm not really a businessman or a parent, but kids stuff seems way over-exposed to me. There doesn't seem to be a lack of children's entertainment, but rather it just seems like a lot of it is bad.
But I'm not sure it matters anyway. Even if you want to sit your kids in front of a TV all day, my experience is that most children will happily watch the same things over and over again. They'll go through periods where a single 2 hour movie can provide 20 hours of entertainment in a given week. (not much of an exaggeration)
Re:DRM is dead? by eleuthero · 2009-07-20 06:46 · Score: 1

So why is there no apparent movement (at least not in the common media like there was with music drm) to have drm free video?
Re:DRM is dead? by bzipitidoo · 2009-07-20 07:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

believing the snake-oil programmers who HAVE to know that there's no way DRM can work
It's not so easy to avoid useless work. Lot of places want their workers to work, not think. Which is peculiar, as engineering is all about thinking. It's only after you're hired on to work on a product that you learn that among all the other things they want, they really wanted you to add DRM to it. They often call it something else, and think that makes it different. One place I was at referred to this feature as "branding". They gloss over details about exactly what their hires will be doing. To them, it's all work on the product. Such distinctions as adding DRM or adding another feature are too fine to be worth mentioning. I've had little to no luck persuading management that DRM isn't worth the effort. They have their ideas and beliefs, and won't easily change them. Too often it's the loudest who get to be managers, not the most correct. They want you to stop competing with them on the noise level and get to work thinking how to make it, and then making it, and they don't want you thinking about other things such as that if it doesn't work, they'll try to blame it all on you.
It doesn't help that there are some programmers who aren't sure DRM doesn't work. And some who are sure but stay out of management's business out of principle, as well as those who keep quiet out of not wanting to go to the trouble of hunting for another job any sooner than necessary. There are many ways to end up doing such work without being a snake oil peddler.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Re:DRM is dead? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2009-07-20 08:34 · Score: 1

You tell me.
And more importantly, what exactly is your point?
Are you disputing that a big (and increasing) chunk of the most popular videos (from expensive (even if crappy) Hollywood movies to inexpensive internet movies) are DRMed, and that in many important areas the DRM is getting more and more strict (think VHS -> DVD -> Bluray)?
Re:DRM is dead? by norpy · 2009-07-20 13:12 · Score: 1

Please mod parent up
Re:DRM is dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 17:30 · Score: 0

On the Roger Corman one....maybe the reason that they didn't is that there is only one Roger Corman, and he can only pedal so fast.
Re:DRM is dead? by eleuthero · 2009-07-21 18:37 · Score: 1

my point is more along the lines of--there was a huge movement against music drm. The studios finally caved and we now have mp3s and non-drm aac's with user personal info encoded in the files as a means of ensuring both free access for consumers and investment protection for corporations. There ought to be a similar movement for not having restrictive drm for video. The question becomes, why is this movement missing?

DRM is more than just music by noidentity · 2009-07-20 00:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

DRM is dead, huh? Apparently Amazon didn't get the memo.

Re:DRM is more than just music by Hurricane78 · 2009-07-20 01:55 · Score: 1

Tomorrow's headline: Amazon is dead.

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:DRM is more than just music by Yvanhoe · 2009-07-20 03:34 · Score: 1

DRM is a dead horse I would like to beat a little more.
Or nuke from orbit, it is the only way to be sure...

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.

Nice Politician Answer by seeker_1us · 2009-07-20 00:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

RIAA has been pushing for DRM up the ass. Asked for their view on DRM, they answer the question with another question that really had nothing to do with the original.

waiting for this moment a long time by santax · 2009-07-20 00:09 · Score: 4, Funny

I for one, am downloading the complete works of James Brown as we speak.

Re:waiting for this moment a long time by Megane · 2009-07-20 00:16 · Score: 5, Funny

I for one, am downloading the complete works of James Brown as we speak.
Do you feel good?

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:waiting for this moment a long time by santax · 2009-07-20 00:20 · Score: 1

I feel alive :)
Re:waiting for this moment a long time by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-07-20 01:28 · Score: 1

I tried to understand this
I thought that they were outta there minds
How could I be so foolish
To not See I was the one behind
So still I kept on fighting
Loosing every step by the way
I said, I must go back there
In Washington still the things are the same.

I never knew that song was about the RIAA.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:waiting for this moment a long time by ZOmegaZ · 2009-07-20 01:34 · Score: 1

And yet you're sitting here posting? Get up off'a that thang!

--
Former US House candidate, TN-5
Re:waiting for this moment a long time by mcgrew · 2009-07-20 03:52 · Score: 1

He's dead, Jim. So's DRM, apparently.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:waiting for this moment a long time by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 04:28 · Score: 0

I knew that I would!

Admiral Ackbar says... by yanyan · 2009-07-20 00:10 · Score: 5, Funny

It's a trap!

Re:Admiral Ackbar says... by al3 · 2009-07-20 00:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Trouble is they spent all this money lobbying politicians to make DRM stick, and tampering with it a federal offense, so they'll keep going down that road while abandoning it in their business models
Re:Admiral Ackbar says... by CarpetShark · 2009-07-20 01:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Admiral Ackbar says... It's a trap!
I'm not sure I believe he said that. Send me a copy of the clip, will you? ;)
Re:Admiral Ackbar says... by bigngamer92 · 2009-07-20 09:06 · Score: 1

Urge to post Rick Rolling rising...

--
Common Sense

Oops...and now Johnny is deader than DRM by Bearhouse · 2009-07-20 00:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

When his paymasters hear about that remark.

Unless they are all suddenly going to start shipping DVDs with no region codes and encryption removed, and tell M$ and others to remove the DRM crap that cripples most PC OSs and head-end audio/video gear...
Dream on little Johnny, wherever you are, (or will shortly be)...

Re:Oops...and now Johnny is deader than DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 00:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unless they are all suddenly going to start shipping DVDs with no region codes and encryption removed

Why would the RIAA have anything at all to do with DVD production? Oh, I see. You're one of those people that can't distinguish between different organizations. I can be like that too. See! "I heard that people make open source software available for free on the internet. So why does Microsoft want me to pay? I thought you guys said software was free!" Your argument is really no different than that.
Re:Oops...and now Johnny is deader than DRM by jonbryce · 2009-07-20 00:58 · Score: 1

DVDs are the MPAA's department, not RIAA. The MPAA still hasn't seen the light in this regard, and most videos are still infected with DRM.
Re:Oops...and now Johnny is deader than DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 01:10 · Score: 0

So when all those DVDs of performances by music artists appear on the store shelves, does that mean the RIAA doesn't have anything to do with them?
Re:Oops...and now Johnny is deader than DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 01:23 · Score: 0

Aren't music videos one of the largest kind of videos there is?
Re:Oops...and now Johnny is deader than DRM by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-07-20 01:32 · Score: 1

tell M$ and others to remove the DRM crap that cripples most PC OSs
Which DRM crap is this? I've used the Win7 RC since the day it was released to watch backed up movies, play ripped music, play DVDs I've borrowed from a friend, play games I bought 2nd hand etc etc and also to perform the actions which are required for the aformentioned archives to be created.

It seems that DRM only affects those who use media which comes compatible with it. Avoid those media, and it's all clear baby!

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Oops...and now Johnny is deader than DRM by gbarules2999 · 2009-07-20 02:15 · Score: 1

tell M$ and others to remove the DRM crap that cripples most PC OSs
Which DRM crap is this?
"Please activate Windows 7 in three days or else this computer will self destruct." Ring any bells?
Re:Oops...and now Johnny is deader than DRM by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-07-20 02:47 · Score: 1

Oh that!

I just clicked Next. That's what I'm supposed to do, isn't it?

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Oops...and now Johnny is deader than DRM by Mister+Whirly · 2009-07-20 04:18 · Score: 1

Exception meet rule. Rule, this is exception. Good to see you now know each other.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:Oops...and now Johnny is deader than DRM by Mister+Whirly · 2009-07-20 04:21 · Score: 1

What does that have to do with the fact that the MPAA is the one that makes decisions about the DRM on DVDs?

--
"But this one goes to 11!"

Give them 60 days to mourn. by MRe_nl · 2009-07-20 00:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

The RIAA is known for their shameless actions, there's really no way to escape a lawsuit. Take the Warner Bros. v. Scantlebury case for example. The defendant in this case passed away before the court made a ruling.
However, according to the RIAA this was not enough to "close the case".
Instead, the RIAA gives the family of the deceased defendant 60 days to grieve, before they start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury's children.
In the "motion to stay case and extend all deadlines" we read:
Plaintiffs do not believe it appropriate to discuss a resolution of the case with the family so close to Mr. Scantlebury's passing. Plaintiffs therefore request a stay of 60 days to allow the family additional time to grieve.

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"

Re:Give them 60 days to mourn. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 00:47 · Score: 0

There are three foolproof ways to avoid a lawsuit:
1) Don't download
2) Don't live in the US
3) Don't get caught.
Perhaps #3 isn't foolproof.
Re:Give them 60 days to mourn. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 01:08 · Score: 0

"before they start taking depositions of the late Mr. Scantlebury's children."
Blimey, I know the RIAA can be harsh, but taking the dead fella's kids is surely a step too far!
Re:Give them 60 days to mourn. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 01:25 · Score: 0

Perhaps #3 isn't foolproof.
Neither are #1 and #2.
Re:Give them 60 days to mourn. by JCSoRocks · 2009-07-20 03:25 · Score: 1

Seriously, what about the people that have been sued that don't even own a PC? I'm also pretty sure I remember hearing about a printer being accused of illegal downloads. At this point you might as well download because you're going to get sued for it anyway.

Disclaimer: I don't download music. No, really, I don't. I'm an audio snob and 99% of digital stuff sounds like crap. Unless someone happened to rip the disc in FLAC, I'm not interested!

--
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Re:Give them 60 days to mourn. by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-07-20 04:08 · Score: 1

There are three foolproof ways to avoid a lawsuit:
1) Don't download
Upload, you mean. I'm not aware that downloading's ever been found illegal. At any rate, you should've written that as:
1) Don't find yourself in the same netblock as someone else who may or may not have violated copyright.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Give them 60 days to mourn. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 04:32 · Score: 0

At this point you might as well download because you're going to get sued for it anyway.
Wow, are you a logic professor or something? If I had an entire week I couldn't point out how moronic that statement actually is.

Yeah, and so is BETAMAX by Cur8or · 2009-07-20 00:21 · Score: 1, Funny

and VHS now too. I think we have a real finalist for captain obvious here.

--
Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus

Re:Speaking of politicians - how's that hope & by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 00:28 · Score: 4, Funny

I thought the phrase "pork in the stimulus" was a figure of speech.

blu-ray by hellfish006 · 2009-07-20 00:29 · Score: 0, Offtopic

then I can expect blu-ray movies to be region free and drm-free from here on out right?

Re:blu-ray by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 00:38 · Score: 0

Either you are new to the internets, or just ignorant.
Re:blu-ray by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 00:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

yes if the RIAA had anything to do with region free movies.
Re:blu-ray by Tweenk · 2009-07-20 00:55 · Score: 1

Wrong part of the Mafiaa, movies are the domain of MPAA...

--
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
Re:blu-ray by hellfish006 · 2009-07-20 01:06 · Score: 1

I know it is, but he said DRM is dead, not just musical DRM
Re:blu-ray by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 01:28 · Score: 0

No, they still make money on blu-ray.
Profits in the music industry are at an all time low, so the businessmen are bailing out.
So, they cut their losses, and abandon any pretence of protecting the artists.
Now the money is in computer games where there is strong copy protection and much less piracy.

When the RIAA closes a door... by castironpigeon · 2009-07-20 00:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

...I'm sure they'll open a couple of windows. I guess this news means their buyout of Congress and the ISP monopolies is going quite well?

--
mmmm...forbidden donut

Re:When the RIAA closes a door... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2009-07-20 01:34 · Score: 1

Are the windows opened to clear the reek of bullshit?

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/

YAY by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 00:33 · Score: 0

Free pineapples for all!

DRM is dead? by johannesg · 2009-07-20 00:34 · Score: 3, Funny

I won't believe it until Netcraft confirms it!

Torrentleech link? by SebaSOFT · 2009-07-20 00:37 · Score: 1

Can you quote a less black-listed source?

Re:Torrentleech link? by SebaSOFT · 2009-07-20 00:38 · Score: 1

My mistake, it's torrentfreak... but still
Re:Torrentleech link? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 00:55 · Score: 0

Can you please be a bit less white-listed? Please?

Can't trust them by wrmrxxx · 2009-07-20 00:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Aren't these the people who told us that the law suits were over? Call me paranoid, but I can't trust them.

I suspect the only reason the RIAA are presenting a softer image on things like the lawsuit threats and DRM is because they believe (or know) that they're going to get their way with the ACTA treaty and we'll all end up being subject to outrageous three-strikes laws.

Re:Can't trust them by Drakkenmensch · 2009-07-20 01:38 · Score: 1

Aren't these the people who told us that the law suits were over? Call me paranoid, but I can't trust them. I suspect the only reason the RIAA are presenting a softer image on things like the lawsuit threats and DRM is because they believe (or know) that they're going to get their way with the ACTA treaty and we'll all end up being subject to outrageous three-strikes laws.
Seems like not trusting them is the smart thing to do. When they say they're not going to sue any more people, it's just something to make us relent while they prepare more subpoenas and gather mediasentry "evidence". Expect your ten year old kid to be getting a multi-million dollar lawsuit any day now.

lets hear it for the RIAA! by nimbius · 2009-07-20 00:39 · Score: 1

an industry so vehement in their defence of artists rights in cyberspace, they have completely forgotten about the very technology they approved to protect it.

to parallel: this is akin to your local law enforcement asking if the war on drugs is dead, or your local supermarket asking if organic produce is dead.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.

DRM is dead? Lets bury it! by joaobranco · 2009-07-20 00:47 · Score: 0

Now is the time to pass a bill requiring that all the digital goods encumbered by DRM should be made available without such restrictions (and free of charge) to those who bought them.

Since even RIAA acknowledges that DRM is dead, there should be no objections to such a common sense measure, right?

Re:DRM is dead? Lets bury it! by mcgrew · 2009-07-20 03:54 · Score: 1

I'd rather see an anti-DMCA, one that would remove copyright protection from any work protected by electronic means.

--
Free Martian Whores!

So? by Veneratio · 2009-07-20 00:55 · Score: 1

Even if this spokesman expressed the RIAA's official stance regarding DRM, this is no guarantee that it ends the stream of stupid/evil/meanspirited/frivolous lawsuits. You only have to look at their trackrecord to believe that. Common sense has never stopped them before, has it?

--
"Sarcasm is for *winners*, Alan." - Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)

Damned if you do... by MikeRT · 2009-07-20 01:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

They need DRM because a lot of their potential customers **won't** pay for the music, but then, if they do put it in there, a lot of their other customers will be pissed off at being restricted when they are willing to pay up for a fair claim to the music. If anything, this proves the basic libertarian point about most morality and the state: society relies on voluntary compliance by the vast majority of people. Any law, even murder, would not be able to work without draconian penalties if a large percentage won't obey it.

Re:Damned if you do... by holmstar · 2009-07-20 01:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Except that they really don't need DRM. Sure in their perfect world, no one can listen to copyrighted music without paying something. But that is a fantasy land. They have to work in the real world, where their loyal customers want to pay for music, but not have to deal with any crap when they do. The other people who are getting it for free most likely wouldn't have bought the music anyway.

I agree with you on voluntary compliance. Look at speed limits. They are mostly ignored and people drive at a speed that seems reasonable instead.
Re:Damned if you do... by cowscows · 2009-07-20 01:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Somebody who won't pay for the music is not a potential customer. That's really the giant disconnect in this whole issue. College kids who've downloaded 40,000 songs off of the internet wouldn't have paid for those 40,000 songs if the music wasn't available online. But the naive belief/dishonest claim that every downloaded song is lost sale is what the RIAA has used to justify all this DRM nonsense to themselves, consumers, government, their investors, etc.
It doesn't come down to anything as broad as libertarian views on society. All of the music industry turmoil can be summed up with just a few basic points:
The record labels as a business model provided three things that most musicians couldn't feasibly do on their own. A proper recording studio, distribution, and decent advertising. Modern hardware and software has drastically lowered the costs to build a recording studio. The internet allows for almost free digital distribution, and physical distribution is become less important every day. The internet has also made advertising much more accessible. What this all means is that record labels are becoming irrelevant, technology is allowing us to cut out the middle man position that they fill. DRM is just a symptom of the huge hissy fit that the music execs are throwing as they've slowly started to understand that they're going to have to find new jobs.

--
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Re:Damned if you do... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 02:28 · Score: 0

You people keep saying that record labels are becoming irrelevant.
What evidence do you have for this other than your own supposing? Are music sales down for all labels? Are sales up for musicians who go it entirely alone? (per your requirements you can't count any independent artists with music distributed by Amazon/iTunes/etc)
It is one thing to realize that it is possible for an individual to inexpensively do things that record labels once did, quite another to show any evidence that it is effective.
Re:Damned if you do... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 02:38 · Score: 0

"College kids who've downloaded 40,000 songs off of the internet wouldn't have paid for those 40,000 songs if the music wasn't available online."
I disagree: it all comes down to pricing. If all those songs were available to them for a for them reasonable price, they probably would. College kids just want to hear the music of their choice, at the moment and place of their choice, and for a price that doesn't eat into the beer budget.
For example, I'm not in college anymore, but I'm also not buying a lot of music: I would gladly subscribe to a $10/month unlimited use service that allows me to get unencumbered access to any music I would like to hear for my personal use only, but it has to be unencumbered (I need to be able to burn a cd (my car doesn't have aux input and no mp3 support), I need to be able to put in on a non-ipod mp3 player, I need to be able to play it on my non-windows home theater, etc, etc. I'd want to be able to stream it to me when I don't have access to where I keep the collection, but do have access to the internet.
Technologically It's possible. I'm only one person, and I wouldn't even listen to music that much. I'd probably listen to less than 50 songs a week. So they could be making roughtly 5 cents every time I listen to a song of my choice. There are many songs I would probably play more than the 20 times total to get to a dollar of revenue for the song.
I would not buy 10 $1 songs in an itunes store every month for ipod-only music, not even one. But I would pay the $10 per month, month after month to keep my fully usable collection both legal and up-to-date.
That isn't offered, so I'm not spending $10/month on music. I'll use the cd's I have from my 'fresh out of college' years and the digital music 'channels' on the cable box for now, maybe consider satellite radio (if that were $5/month I'd already have that)... In the care, I now keep the radio off (too much talking and commercials), and I'm beginning to enjoy that (my trips are short and I enjoy the quiet time).
You can call me cheap, or you can realize I just don't think non-live music is that valuable.
I'm a customer that the industry is missing. I have $10 every month for the right service from the industry, actually I'd find it fair to pay $20 every month to include my wife, but I can't find such a service. There are always restrictions that sour the deal for me.
If they wait much longer, I'll completely lose what it left of my addiction to recorded music and find even $10/month not worth it.
Re:Damned if you do... by Urza9814 · 2009-07-20 02:45 · Score: 1

If you've got a few PCs laying around and BitTorrent, you can actually get some excellent and quite professional recordings for damn near free - pull as many soundcards as you can get, load them into one PC, and pirate Cakewalk (or pay a couple hundred bucks for it). It's amazing what you can do with that setup. I remember one solo that I just could not get right when my band was recording, and we actually spliced out a few notes that were bad and re-recorded them and layered it over.
Physical distribution isn't bad either if you're a small band and are looking to do it locally. You can get CDs printed and mailed to you for about $2 a disc online. Then you can sell those on your website, on Amazon, and probably on some other online stores. If you're looking for brick-and-mortar distribution...well that's the one thing that's missing, though you could easily do it locally - most record stores will allow you to set up a rack of discs and a cash box, though they won't ensure that everyone actually pays - and perhaps with some dedicated friends and fans (who you've met online) you could get most of the major cities covered that way.
And advertising...anyone can buy some google ads. And anyone can put together a 'street team' online. And 'word of mouth' flows much faster than it used to. Combine those and you've got some pretty good advertising.
Personally, I think it's easier even than you seem to imply.
Re:Damned if you do... by mcgrew · 2009-07-20 02:45 · Score: 1

Any law, even murder, would not be able to work without draconian penalties if a large percentage won't obey it.
Alcohol prohibition in the US proved that any law that a large percentange of the population won't obey should never have been enacted in the first place.
That goes for marijuana and the ludicrous copyright laws these days.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Damned if you do... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 03:25 · Score: 0

"Modern hardware and software has drastically lowered the costs to build a recording studio."
No it has not.
Studio 1980 :
Recording equipment : Â£40,000
Premises and sound treatment Â£120,000
Studio 2009:
Recording equipment : Â£20,000
Premises and sound treatment Â£120,000
You can say, 'hey but now I can record in my bedroom!'
But, back then people could buy a second hand 8 track and record in their bedroom too. Then make tape copies for their friends. Nowadays, people record stuff at home of the same quality, and their friends download it from myspace. In both cases, 99% is forgotten after a couple of years, as neither the songs, nor the recording quality are very good.
A recording studio is a place with good sounding rooms, accurate monitoring for both playback and headphone distribution, and the equipment to get a quality job done quickly. It hasn't got any cheaper.
Re:Damned if you do... by socrplayr813 · 2009-07-20 03:26 · Score: 1

Voluntary compliance works for most things because those things are understood by the public and pretty much universally believed to be in everyone's best interests. Murder, for example, is very much frowned upon in every modern society I'm aware of because it goes against the community/teamwork that makes up those societies beneficial to their members. I suspect that a lot of that is due to evolution or at least social conditioning.
I would guess that the reason DRM, copyrights, and other similar things aren't working is because they go beyond human nature and survival instincts. The community feelings and beliefs don't come into play because there's no immediate benefit to either side from an evolutionary perspective. I don't think the situation can really be compared to murder or other serious crimes.

--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
Re:Damned if you do... by FireFury03 · 2009-07-20 03:44 · Score: 1

They need DRM because a lot of their potential customers **won't** pay for the music,
Even assuming that's true, how does DRM help?
- Without DRM, their "potential customers who won't pay" download the music illegally.
- With DRM, their "potential customers who won't pay" download music illegally.
See, there is no difference - DRM stops your *actual* customers copying the music (usually for their own use). It does nothing to stop the "potential customer who won't pay" - DRM won't stop 100% of people copying, so the music will always be available to download illegally. In fact, with DRM you have stopped your actual customers copying the content for their own use by legal means, so they are going to have to download it illegally - i.e. DRM has actually *increased* the amount of illegal copying and done nothing to increase the number of sales. Additionally, DRM will actually decrease the number of sales since some of your customers will decide they don't want to put up with DRM and therefore won't buy your product (either just doing without it, or downloading it illegally).
Of course, your assertion that there are "potential customers" who "*won't* pay" is completely bogus anyway - if they won't pay under any circumstances then they aren't potential customers.
Speaking for myself, I don't buy a lot of music but the vast majority of music I have bought in the past 10 years or so has been bought because I was able to download it first and see what I was going to get for my money. If DRM was 100% successful, most of those purchases simply wouldn't have happened; I won't buy an album on the back of hearing just 1 good track..

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re:Damned if you do... by misexistentialist · 2009-07-20 04:07 · Score: 1

Look at speed limits. They are mostly ignored and people drive at a speed that seems reasonable instead.
There's a DRM for that. Now that there is not enough income being earned to generate fat taxes for government, we'll almost certainly see technological solutions to recover the $ billions that speeding "road pirates" are stealing.
Re:Damned if you do... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 04:23 · Score: 0

If you have a large rucksack, then it's dead easy to nick software from music shops. Just put the bag on the ground and look the other way, then knock stuff off the shelf into the bag.
I find this much faster than BitTorrent, and you get the manuals as well, which makes using the software much easier. It only costs a few pence for software companies to duplicate the CD and manual, so it's not really stealing.
Re:Damned if you do... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 04:30 · Score: 0

Please provide a link to your band's web site, and the address of a record store near me where I can pick up a physical CD and pay for it at a cash box. (I live in a major city)
Re:Damned if you do... by 0ld_d0g · 2009-07-20 04:44 · Score: 0

The other people who are getting it for free most likely wouldn't have bought the music anyway.
I doubt it. A similar analogy would be if users were unable to get pirated copies of Windows they would all switch to OSX/Linux/BSD etc
Re:Damned if you do... by inviolet · 2009-07-20 05:29 · Score: 1

No it has not.
Studio 1980 :
Recording equipment : £40,000
Premises and sound treatment £120,000
Studio 2009:
Recording equipment : £20,000
Premises and sound treatment Â£120,000
I don't know where you got your figures to begin with, but I'll bet you haven't factored in inflation. 120,000 is equal to about 300,000 today.

--
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Re:Damned if you do... by inviolet · 2009-07-20 05:49 · Score: 1

Except that they really don't need DRM. Sure in their perfect world, no one can listen to copyrighted music without paying something. But that is a fantasy land. They have to work in the real world, where their loyal customers want to pay for music, but not have to deal with any crap when they do. The other people who are getting it for free most likely wouldn't have bought the music anyway.
So what do you suppose would happen if Amazon.com's MP3 download store made it optional to pay for the songs? How many customers would stop paying, and just download for free? Zero?

--
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Re:Damned if you do... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 06:59 · Score: 0

Sorry, I missed that.
Would Â£300,000 buy any decent premises today, I wonder?
Two decent size rooms and a control room either in or near or city with sound treatment...
It's optimistic, but I reckon you could just about do it for Â£300,000, as long as you were only looking at providing facilities for mid level acts.
Re:Damned if you do... by cowscows · 2009-07-20 08:26 · Score: 1

Fair enough, but you're still talking about a completely different business model, and so the people who have jobs that rely on the old one are still going to make up reasons why it wouldn't work.
And at the end of the day, whether that college kid that can't download music spends $10/month on a CD or $10/month on a subscription, that's still a far cry from the $40,000 that the RIAA claims they've lost in sales. So they would probably use pretty much the same argument to try and preserve the status-quo.
There's still money to be made in music, in fact the lowered costs of production/storage/distribution could mean that there's a better market available than ever before, its just that the money is going to different people than before.

--
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Re:Damned if you do... by cowscows · 2009-07-20 08:36 · Score: 1

Meh, if the government for whatever reason decided to build thousands of state of the art studios and provided a professionally done recording for free to anyone who wanted one, 99% of it would still be forgotten, because making good music is hard.
The state of the art of anything is always going to be expensive, but just because you could spend $10,000 on an umbrella doesn't mean that a $15 umbrella is worthless. But anyways, maybe I shouldn't have said "building a recording studio" and instead said "gaining access to a recording studio". I know a few local bands that have produced their own CD's for just a few grand, and have done alright for themselves. They have facilities available to them that are a bit nicer than a basement setup. I'm sure it's not the perfect recording studio, and someone who knows what they're doing could find plenty of ways to potentially improve things, but that doesn't mean that it's worthless and that the end result is automatically crap.

--
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Re:Damned if you do... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 10:49 · Score: 0

It's not so much about state of the art. Building good sounding rooms has been known about for a while. But, bricks and mortar and sound treatment are not getting any cheaper. At the very least, the drummers got to be able to play without worrying about the neighbours.
I'm mostly looking at it from the point of view of people making a living from their music. That's not everyone's intention, and it shouldn't be. If it's not, then the quality of the recording is not so important, and a bedroom studio is fine. Some music of course will transcend the recording anyway, no matter what the circumstances.
If they do want to make a living though...
This means that it has to be sound competitive against everything else it out there, and translate well to many different listening environments.
The second of those is probably the hardest, oddly enough, as the arrangement and choice of sounds has to be bang on, and that often requires a producer *and* a good recording studio. Without decent monitoring too, it's hard to make mixes that translate well.
I don't mean to put the whole home recording scene down, as I see it as the lifeblood of music at the moment. What does make me sad is when bands spend thousands of pounds on recording gear, and then spend months and months tracking themselves at home. Often in really awkward ways as they don't have the facilities to capture the whole band at once. So they do it bit by bit which destroys their nice feel, and some members of the band are always having to watch the meters rather than thinking about the music.
So many times I've heard a band do a live radio session with quite an average mix, but it's sounded so much better that their home made recordings as they are all playing together and there is some life to it!
If they rehearsed up, went in a decent studio, they could get it down in a week, save all that money from gear, and end up with a better sounding and translating recording for much less. (Well, most of the time)
Not everyone is a natural engineer, and I don't like it when musicians get distracted and spend all their time and money messing with equipment when they should be having fun and playing their instruments.
Re:Damned if you do... by ekhben · 2009-07-20 14:07 · Score: 1

loyal to a company that doesn't even have a relationship with them? Labels don't sell to customers. Labels sell to retailers, retailers sell to customers. I'm not even a statistic to the labels, the retailers I purchase from are. Loyalty! Ga-jeebus. Direct your loyalty somewhere it's reciprocated, or at least appreciated.
I guess if I didn't over-react to that word, and mentally translated it to something more akin to "morally obliged to pay the asking price or go without" then it would make sense :-)

!Digital Rights Management by A.+B3ttik · 2009-07-20 01:01 · Score: 1

He meant DRM as in "Duke Nukem Forever's Release Model.

Does this mean DRM is dead? Nope! by Chas · 2009-07-20 01:13 · Score: 1

This is simply the RIAA trying to kill/win the argument by declaring it a dead issue.

See: "Hold hands over ears and scream LALALALALALALALALALALALA."

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

The RIAA and MPAA are inextricably linked by tepples · 2009-07-20 01:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why would the RIAA have anything at all to do with DVD production?

The RIAA and MPAA are inextricably linked:

Concert DVDs.
Music video DVDs.
RIAA music is used in films' soundtracks.
Sony is in both the MPAA and the big four labels of the RIAA.
Disney is in the MPAA, and Disney's Hollywood Records (e.g. Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, Queen) is in the RIAA.
Vivendi, parent company of UMG, still holds a 20 percent stake in NBC Universal, an MPAA member.

Re:The RIAA and MPAA are inextricably linked by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 01:35 · Score: 0

This is several years old, but why don't we just take it a little further and show how they're all part of the military industrial complex?
Re:The RIAA and MPAA are inextricably linked by dkleinsc · 2009-07-20 03:13 · Score: 2, Informative

This diagram (a few years old but still fairly accurate) really tells you what the media business looks like:
http://www.thenation.com/special/2006_entertainment.pdf
So yes, nearly all of the big media companies are both RIAA and MPAA members.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:The RIAA and MPAA are inextricably linked by JCSoRocks · 2009-07-20 03:19 · Score: 1

That might be interesting but it's so bloody small that you can't read it. Bigger version please AC. Thanks.

--
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Re:The RIAA and MPAA are inextricably linked by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 03:29 · Score: 0

It was an insert with Godspeed You Black Emperor's Yanqui UXO album, so the physical copies are considerably larger. Thankfully, it looks like there's a larger scan available here.

RIAA is audio, MPAA is video! and infected. by upuv · 2009-07-20 01:27 · Score: 1

Minor point people.

To put it in cave man terms.

RIAA is audio.
MPAA is video.

Jonathan Lamy is associated with the RIAA not the MPAA. Thus he is not even remotely hinting that your DVD will be DRM infection free. Only your precious copy of the Chipmonks sing "Achy Breaky Heart" can be freely copied between your audio devices.

Re:RIAA is audio, MPAA is video! and infected. by blackest_k · 2009-07-20 03:45 · Score: 1

Ok Drm free downloads of music, but is the drm going on all the cd's with music on them as well?
or how about the DTS audio discs DRM free?
I've a feeling that it wasn't a statement of DRM is dead more that there are some DRM free formats commercially available.

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants

RIAA == MPAA by tepples · 2009-07-20 01:28 · Score: 1

Wrong part of the Mafiaa, movies are the domain of MPAA...

I've answered that objection in my other comment.

Control Freaks by Nature by ring-eldest · 2009-07-20 01:32 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm sure this is just a prelude to some new agenda to push DRM under a different name. "DRM is dead! But now we have Intellectual Property Protection... Or how about Online Property Protection?"

You down with OPP? Yeah, you know me.

I know you.

Oh come on now by Drakkenmensch · 2009-07-20 01:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

DRM can't be dead! Everyone knows that the BEST way to counter shoplifting is to harass, insult and severely beat up your paying consumers before they ever think of commiting the crime!

Re:Oh come on now by upuv · 2009-07-20 01:38 · Score: 1

Where were you when I was pimping back in the 80's? They called me "Johnny Goodie Two Shoes".
My Ho's were always given away the merchandise. Eventually I had to change to IT to fund my "habit". I was just loosing way to much money. Ho maintenance ain't cheap, you know.
And all I had to do was rough up the clients once and a while. You know, I knew I was missing something. I just couldn't put my finger on it.

Dunno if DRM is really dead... by Opportunist · 2009-07-20 02:05 · Score: 1

...but it sure smells rotten.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re: Potential Consumer by TaoPhoenix · 2009-07-20 02:26 · Score: 0

They would be potential consumers, but the equation they're using is wrong.

As a totally random but scarily easy to apply metric, potential consumer = SqRoot(SqRoot(Pirated Songs)).
(Done that way so those cheap $5 calculators can handle it.)
Examples:

PowerPirate downloads 40,000 songs...
Sqr(Sqr(40000)) = about 14 songs they might have paid for.
Now yes, 14 IS greater than zero! But now it becomes clear what the ratio really is.

MinorPirate downloads 50 songs ...
Sqr(Sqr(50)) means they might have bought 2-3.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Oh good then Windows 7 doesn't need it by Eddy_D · 2009-07-20 02:28 · Score: 1

Oh good then Windows 7 doesn't need it... Because if DRM is dead, what good is support for it in an OS? Yeah I know, dream on...

--
- I stole your sig.

Not dead, 'e's resting! by Tenebrousedge · 2009-07-20 02:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Reminds me of that skit, you know? I think it went something like this...

Netcraft: Bring out yer dead.
[a man puts a body on the cart]
Jonathan Lamy: Here's one.
Netcraft: That'll be ninepence.
DRM: I'm not dead.
Netcraft: What?
Jonathan Lamy: Nothing. There's your ninepence.
DRM: I'm not dead.
Netcraft: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Jonathan Lamy: Yes he is.
DRM: I'm not.
Netcraft: He isn't.
Jonathan Lamy: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
DRM: I'm getting better.
Jonathan Lamy: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
Netcraft: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
DRM: I don't want to go on the cart.
Jonathan Lamy: Oh, don't be such a baby.
Netcraft: I can't take him. I have to go over to the *BSDs, they've lost nine today.

Something like that :)

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.

A question is not a "statement" by Geoffrey.landis · 2009-07-20 03:03 · Score: 1

Just pointing out, the actual wording was in the form of question, not a "statement".

"Jonathan Lamy, chief spokesperson for the RIAA[,] declared DRM dead, when he was asked about the RIAA's view on DRM for an upcoming SCMagazine article. "DRM is dead, isn't it?" Lamy said."

One really wonders why it is "news" when a RIAA spokesman asks an off-the-cuff question. It's really being blown out of proportion to call it a "statement from the RIAA."

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Re:A question is not a "statement" by mcgrew · 2009-07-20 03:57 · Score: 1

It's both a statement AND a question, Mr. Pedant. "DRM is dead" is a statement, "Isn't it?" is a question.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:A question is not a "statement" by value_added · 2009-07-20 04:21 · Score: 1

Just pointing out, the actual wording was in the form of question, not a "statement".
You're new here, aren't you?
More helpful links:
Rhetoric
Reading and Comprehension

Almost forgot! by Drakkenmensch · 2009-07-20 03:16 · Score: 1

You also have to spot someone at random in the store and take away their wallet, claiming that since they are thieves they must pay thousands of dollars in damages to make up for the cost of the item they had probably stolen last time they were here. That's the RIAA way!

Am I the only one? by gubers33 · 2009-07-20 03:36 · Score: 0, Troll

Who is tired about the constant posting of all of the RIAA articles, I read slashdot daily and every day there is at least 2-3 articles about the RIAA whether is it cases or what? Is this like some train wreck that people are interested in?

--
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.

Re:Am I the only one? by mmaniaci · 2009-07-20 04:36 · Score: 1

I'm not tired, and no its not a train wreck, but it may become one. You may see this as an immature squabble between "pirates" and *IAA but some of us value music (movies, etc) more than most anything else in life. We are getting borked in the butt by a government agency that somehow has clandestine rights to determine what we want to enjoy, how we want to enjoy it, and when we are able to enjoy it. This is bad, and the people should be angry and therefore stories about the borking, deborking, or reborking get front page on /.
Re:Am I the only one? by gubers33 · 2009-07-20 07:56 · Score: 1

No, I completely agree, I think the RIAA is just a bunch of money whores. I was happy to see that a judge appointed a Pro Bono lawyer to the one case and hope that it happens in all cases so that the RIAA can't just go after weak victims with no legal representation. The amount of news we give them on this site is insane especially, since most of slashdot hates the RIAA, due to many of us being opensource whores who believe in the freedom of information and media(I'm one of them).

--
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.

The kill off potential sales themselves by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 04:05 · Score: 1, Interesting

If something is off the shelf, it loses a potential sale.

SUE THE SHOPS!

If something is not under print, it loses a potential sale.

SUE THE LABEL!

If something dies undercopyright, it loses a potential sale AND steals from the public domain.

SUE THE CORPORATIONS!

No, but you're not required to read this by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 04:07 · Score: 0

So why get all shitty over it?

Not good by mmaniaci · 2009-07-20 04:28 · Score: 1

This just means that they found something better. And better means worse.

Next up, eBook publishers? by Mathinker · 2009-07-20 04:41 · Score: 1

A few weeks ago, I tried to fill out a marketing poll from Macmillan about ebooks.

I couldn't answer most of the questions because DRM was just not even mentioned, so I couldn't guess if I'd want to buy or no.

I ended up sending them a separate email explaining my anti-DRM position. They didn't send any reply.

In terms of effectiveness, DRM for ebooks is even sillier than for music. I can't wait until the revolution manages to convince eBook publishers, also. It probably won't happen until the price of readers drops enough that a family will have several of them, possibly of different brands, and then they figure out that they can't transfer ebooks between them, and everyone starts to look for, er, "alternate" solutions....

It's just another turn of the wheel by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 04:45 · Score: 0

Back in the 80s most software came "copy-protected" or required dongles. Eventually the manufacturers decided the cons outweighed the pros and abandoned the practice. After 15 years, a new generation of executives that weren't there for that round got the same bright idea, and there we went again. Really quite boring. If DRM is dead for now, rest assured it will be back in some new guise ("quantum DRM") 15-20 years from now.

Re:LOSSY encoded IS DRM, only ur2 fucking stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 05:34 · Score: 0

How is a lousy encoding DRM? Bad is bad but Itunes uses a top quality encoder and so does Amazon.

cite the numbers by SethJohnson · 2009-07-20 06:12 · Score: 1, Informative

PG movies on average outearn R movies, but there are more R movies made than PG movies.

Where are your stats to back this assertion up? Most of the intended big blockbusters are PG, which supports your box office observation, but not your number-of-releases claim. Few directors are allowed by the producers to develop an R movie with a big budget.

With the success of Old School, there has been a resurgence in the R-rated comedy, but until Hangover whomped the shit out of the PG-rated Land of the Lost, the studios were still refusing to substantially fund any movie that wouldn't sell tickets to 8th Grade Girls. I suspect there are a lot of meetings taking place in Hollywood these days where execs are discussing the Hangover's success.

Seth

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!

DRM isn't truly dead for the RIAA... by macraig · 2009-07-20 06:18 · Score: 1

... until the fat lady sings.

Re:DRM isn't truly dead for the RIAA... by ekhben · 2009-07-20 14:11 · Score: 1

She's sung already, but the recording won't play anywhere but on Zune Guy's iPod.

RIAA members wanted the money by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 06:33 · Score: 0

Music was getting pirated like crazy and RIAA members wanted their sales back. Nobody is going to buy music they can't play, when they can get working music for free. DRM was suicide, because even the most widely-adopted DRM format (Apple's) was only playable by a tiny fraction of the market (iTunes and iPod users). Some people said the iPod has a huge part of the market, but that never was really true.

Video is taking longer; MPAA and other video producers currently feel they aren't losing much to piracy, so there's no reason not to tell customers to fuck off. You can tell them you would prefer to not sell them movies, and most of them will buy anyway, because "free" movies still take a lot of bandwidth to download.

Tech will march on, though. It currently takes hours to download a movie. When it takes two minutes, things will change. If you tell someone you don't want them as a customer, and if not being a customer is reasonably convenient to them, then they'll eventually take your advice. At some point, video producers will either have to reverse their pro-piracy (pro-DRM) stance, or go out of business.

I think the big question people will be asking later, is why the RIAA and MPAA ever wanted to not have customers to begin with. Reducing revenue never makes business sense if you don't also reduce expenses, and there's never been so much as a hint that using DRM reduces production costs. So what could the upside of DRM possibly ever be? It never made sense; it's only a way to lose sales, with nothing more to it, to balance that out. Really weird.

new tag? by shentino · 2009-07-20 07:51 · Score: 1

suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

Flamebait!? by INowRegretThesePosts · 2009-07-20 08:27 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Tasteless yes, but flamebait? This is clearly moderation abuse.

Note that I even disagree with the post in more than one aspect, and would have used different wording. But it deserves no kind of downmod, and absolutely not flamebait.

don't be silly... by roc97007 · 2009-07-20 09:44 · Score: 1

> Let's see whether their actions going forward align with the words.

Of course not. Whether DRM is dead over the long term (which has been obvious to most of us here for some time) has absolutely nothing to do with current and near-future lawsuits. If the RIAA deliberately left money on the table, their masters would have their guts for garters. I mean, c'mon. If anything, they'd put on extra pressure to maximize revenue stream from the existing infrastructure (RIAA/MediaSentry/lobbying/etc) while it still had value. Sue the pants off everyone in sight while you still can, whilst simultaneously preparing some kind of exit strategy.

At least, that's what I'd do. If I were a shameless, evil bastard.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

You have a few typos... by Lead+Butthead · 2009-07-20 10:10 · Score: 1

"an industry so vehement in their defence of their own profit margin, they have completely forgotten about the very artists they claim to protect."

--
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?

Not if MS has a say so by HermMunster · 2009-07-20 12:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft put into Vista (and even added more in Vista 7) an incredible amount of DRM. Gates spoke to the press a few years ago stating that computers were no longer used primarily to produce content. He stated they are used primarily to consume it.

Like .doc and .xls formats DRM is used to lock you into a certain company's product. For example, if the courts tell a lawyer that he must submit his pleadings in .doc format then the lawyer has to go back to the office and buy Word for every person providing legal assistance on the case. If he wants to create .doc files he must use word and word runs on Windows. That means the lawyer, his help, and most likely the lawfirm is locked in. This is a very important element to note here.

DRM had Microsoft foaming at the mouth due primarily to the fact that they controlled the mechanism and they had the influence to push even the hardware manufacturers to implement special on-card circuitry to support their DRM. In return it is clear that they would then benefit from some amount from each piece of content sold, not just in the fact that the DRM was not going to be licensed and used on competing platforms, but in the actual sale of the content.

Microsoft saw what Apple had done with iTunes and the iPod with DRM and they were all set to push into that market with a DRM strategy of their own with the Zune until Apple decided to pull the rug out from under them by removing DRM from their store. This in part left people with a platform that had no need for the performance hogging DRM which Microsoft could have claimed was a necessary evil and consumers would have had to accept it, as Microsoft is a monopoly. Microsoft was planning on grabbing monopoly share in DRM content creation by using their monopoly in the OS market.

DRM'd content isn't made to allow you to benefit from it. It is made to ensure that you play that content on only the devices and platforms upon which it is made (DRM on Windows by Microsoft is only usable on Windows). Content creators are not going to license and recreate their content for multiple platforms as it currently is too expensive. Even if the costs did come down they would simply bail on the idea of multiplatforms with the excuse that Windows should be enough because it is the defacto standard. Who cares how Microsoft got there.

Microsoft invested heavily in DRM for the PC and made manufacturers of hardware and content creators all comply. In Vista 7 they put in even more DRM control. It is not likely that Microsoft will give up this position since it knows that formats are lock in technologies which force consumers onto and to stay with their platform.

Sad as that is, it is true. The RIAA guy is either a fool or his superiors haven't clued him in on the future.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

RIAA is dead by Mystery00 · 2009-07-20 12:53 · Score: 1

RIAA: DRM is dead.
DRM: RIAA is dead.

--
"we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer

If only this Dead by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-20 20:30 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

HELLO!!?!?!?! by xmvince · 2009-07-21 05:40 · Score: 1

DRM has been dead for YEARS! I'm an IT guy and I download music and such every day and I've never had to deal with DRM. So yeah, DRM? Seems like someone is just bumping up an ollllldddd post.

Slashdot Mirror

RIAA Spokesman Says DRM Is Dead

154 comments