Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Says "Don't Expect DRMed Music To Work Forever"
Oracle Goddess writes "Buying DRMed content, then having that content stop working later, is fair, writes Steven Metalitz, the lawyer who represents the MPAA, RIAA in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office. 'We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works.' In other words, if it stops working, too bad. Not surprisingly, Metalitz also strongly opposes any exemption that would allow users to legally strip DRM from content if a store goes dark and takes down its authentication servers."
As a proud user of GStreamer-based media players, I didn't expect it to work at all.
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
...doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
They don't care. Providing product isn't in their business model anyway.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
... The money I gave you for it still works. I don't get to take that back, do I?
People who buy DRM'ed media content are idiots. It's not as if the record companies have tried to hide their sense of entitlement, or their unethical beliefs and attitudes. It would be different if they had, but as things stand, there's nothing else to do but blame the "victims" who keep giving them their money.
Stop feeding the machine, people.
If you don't want drm, buy the cd and rip.
... Fuck you.
So they're knowingly defrauding the buyer by intentionally selling something not fit for purpose?
I assume our wise and courageous Justice Department will hand down indictments any minute!
Yes of course. But that's because the creative works should be public domain after a while. And I don't mean after 70+ years either.
Car Analogy, I choose you!
I'd like to sell you a car, it's brand new and gets great gas mileage. Oh, but only you can drive it, no fair letting someone else borrow it without them paying us. And you can only drive it on roads that we say are ok. You also have to bring it in to the shop once a week, or it will stop working. If you're out of town and can't get it into the shop, it'll stop working until you do, and if the shop goes out of business or just doesn't want to work on your car anymore, well, that's just too bad; we reject the idea that you should be able to drive your car forever.
So, according to him, noone ever 'buys' movies or music; they just rent them until they break.
I almost hope he wins; stupid restrictions like this only increase the incentive to avoid DRM.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Record sales are slowing down, and you are trying to cash in on the digital economy. How do you go about it? Well, if you're the RIAA, you publicly come out and announce to everyone that you are going to sell them a product that can arbitrarily stop working. Ugh, I really hope that the RIAA is not long for this world. Oh, and if they start getting bailout money I am leaving the country, mark my words. They have undermined their own business and they deserve to fail.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
The only way right now to reasonably sell people the same, say, movie is to release it in a different format (dvd, now bluray) or to include some extras or a shiny box or whatever. Something different, no matter how small.
Mr. Metalitz's view allows online store operators to simply go out of business, start a new store under a different name and maybe even with different names on the corporate charter, and go on about selling the same exact things over again.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
mreposter
When GM went bankrupt they didn't come and take away everybody's car keys.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
"You don't understand, Harry, nobody could understand unless they have lived with the goblins. To a goblin, the rightful and true master of any object is its maker, not the purchaser. All goblin-made objects are, in goblin eyes, rightfully theirs."
"But if it was bought ---"
"---then they would consider it rented by one who had paid the money. They have, however, great difficulty with the idea of goblin-made objects passing from wizard to wizard. [snip] I believe he thinks, as do the fiercest of his kind, that it [the Sword of Gryffindor] ought to have been returned to the goblins once the original purchaser died. They consider our habit of keeping goblin-made objects, passing them from wizard to wizard without further payment, little more than theft."
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Dear RIAA,
In regards to your notice that you feel it is fair to arbitrarily remove something I have purchased from my possession (via disabling DRM'd music), I wish to inform you that you will never, ever, ever get another cent from me. I wish you good luck in maintaining your failing empire as it crumbles down around you for I am certain I am far from the only person who is disgusted at your activities and your outright contempt for me as a "customer." Thus I am certain others will also forgo purchasing your latest CD from Pop Star X and chose to instead invest that entertainment dollar in something - anything - that is of value. Your product no longer has value.
Thank you and goodbye.
Yes, what Metalitz says is true, that rightsholders cannot be expected to provide copies that work in perpetuity, but never have rightsholders had the ability to REMOVE the legally purchased right to consume said product. Either rightsholders must accept the burden of maintaining availability, or they must not require DRM. Not a legal opinion, a moral one.
MacroHard - Boning you in a big way! (TM)
Let's stop making such a big deal about this. The solution is simple. DO NOT BUY DRMed MEDIA! There's plenty of quality media available outside the recording industry. Articles like these need to go away IMO.
What if there was a warning/disclaimer before every purchase of DRM'd media (music, books, etc) that said something to the effect of:
"This content contains digital protections to prevent copyright infringement. Part of these protections mean that if we decide to stop supporting this content or go out of business then you will never be able to legally access this content."
Just so people know what they're getting into. After all, it would only be a fair full disclosure of what they're buying and it might make people think twice about buying DRM'd media, but then again, I doubt the warnings on cigarettes really make people think twice about smoking.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
That's gotta hurt. How long before a retraction/denial/sacking?
It doesn't matter. Most consumers learned long ago that this is the basic way of thinking with large music-related corporations. That's *why* piracy is so high. And the music industry still makes money (I have NO idea how, but it does... vast amounts).
All this will do is increase piracy by another tiny percentage. That's it. The people who were borderline will think "That's enough" and everyone else will carry on as normal. And then there'll be another stupid announcemnt/technology/law/restriction and the borderline will shift again and again and again until, actually, *nobody* cares at all.
Please, please, RIAA... consider what would have happened if you went back in the time to all the previous stupid announcements you've made and proclaimed the OPPOSITE. Consider what people would be using now instead of torrent'd MP3's - cheap non-DRM music from YOUR store (and now from Amazon nearly 10 YEARS too late). The next generation are being taught to ignore you, whether accidentally or not, and you won't exist to them - they have iPod's loaded up with MP3's and copy and share them indiscriminately, in the same way that schoolkids are basically taught to copy/paste images from Google Images into their coursework. The laws that *do* protect your business will become more like guidelines, until eventually they are never enforced at all.
You're digging your own grave, and everyone is watching you, but you're the only one not to see it.
Yes it is. The point is DRM in general, not just DRM for your particular music in your particular format, from your particular vendor. The decisions made now about DRM will set precident for Movies, Books, Software, and technologies we don't even consider now, possibly including virtual worlds, 3d models for 3d-printers, and who knows what else.
This statement is completely wrong.
"We reject the view," he writes in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office, "that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."
Computers and other products might wear out, but they do not have a "kill switch" that will stop them from working after a specific date, or at the request of the vendor. If you take care of computer hardware, automobiles, other physical objects, they can last a lifetime. The same is true for music, books, and other physical media. DRMed content contains such a "kill switch"... once the server goes down, it's gone.
People used to joke about "having to buy the White Album again", but they didn't actually have to do it, they could keep playing the vinyl copy when CDs came along, and even iTunes didn't make the forty year old LP turn into dust. DRM gives the music industry a new capability, the ability to force EVERYONE to "buy the White Album again" by taking down a single server.
We're discussing Record Megacorps not the Sopranos. They eanr their money by providing product, not extortion.
(somebody whispers in my ear)
What's that? RIAA sends out extortionate letters demanding $5000 or else? Really? Oh. Well then I retract my statement. They really are like the mafia.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Wow, just wow. This reply of yours was made one minute after another referencing goblins from Harry Potter.
I swear, you Harry Potter fans are starting to creep me out. :(
I don't buy DRM'ed music, I only buy music that does not have DRM to it. Most of my music tastes are 1980's and 1990's music which are available in CD form via used CD stores and Pawn Shops for like really cheap.
I listen to AM and FM radio for free, while I cannot choose the music they play I can change the channel until I find a song I like to hear.
I still own a Sony Walkman and a lot of cassette tape music I bought. My wife still has a stereo system that uses LPs.
I don't own an iPod or iPhone, but I do have a cheap MP3 player by jWin that uses SD cards and my songs in MP3 format barely fill the 512M SD card.
I am on disability since 2002 and been out of work because I have been too sick to work. I cannot afford to buy too many songs or media players like the iPod or iPhone. I have to work with what I can afford to buy, and keep my "legacy music" technology working until it breaks and needs replacements.
Owning DRM music that "expires" is stupid, if you bought something you should be able to own it until you get tired of it and sell it. With the audio CDs people would just sell their old CDs at garage sales or sell them to used CD shops or Pawn shops. But with a DRM music file, not only does it expire, but if you don't want it anymore you cannot sell it to someone else. Capitalism works with a "used market" as well for people to buy stuff cheaper because it is used. Shut off that "used market" and you shut off part of the economy. Thus the economy will suffer for it.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
They don't care about keeping customers happy. They care about maintaining the "introduce a new format and require everyone to re-purchase their entire collection" model that they've had for the last century. With digital music, that's difficult to do unless they literally introduce a new and far superior digital format. Since they're not likely to do that -- or at least to the extent that the same number of people would switch from current mp3 or ogg that would switch from cassette to compact disc, they have to manufacture the turnover themselves. So, use DRM to simply cut off the music at a certain interval, requiring the user to go back and pay to download their entire library all over again.
Copyright needs to be put back to the original 14 years and signing your copyright over to a third party should also not be allowed.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Because my money is now printed with disappearing ink.
Exactly.
Damn, my $100 collector edition of Fallout 3 won't work anymore! I still have a vintage XBOX 360. And the game disc. But damn, for some reason every time I try to play the game, I just get a "you are not authorized to play this title" on the screen followed by an advertisement for a bunch of current generation videogames that they suggest I buy and play instead!
They think it is fair to have perpetual, virtually "forever" copyrights while it is fair that the buyer does not get to own it "forever"?
I think we are far beyond any sense of reasonable and it is just about time we have them committed to a psychiatric institution.
"The more you tighten your grip, Metalitz, more songs will slip through your fingers"
(What kind of name is "Metalitz", anyway?? Sounds like an evil android)
No sig for the moment.
from now on we should refuse to use to use the term "Intellectual Property."
Mr. Stallman is way ahead of you. As I understand it, his points are as follows:
that quote is hilarious
considering the formidable army of ip lawyers team jk rowling has assembled, and their frequent aggressive efforts at maintaining hegemony, jk rowling certainly is no stranger to intellectual property law. if this wasn't conscious parody on her part, then it had to be unconscious. because by the time a goblin appears in the harry potter books, she was firmly entrenched in cultural superstar status and all the ip lawyering that involves
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I keep thinking how these approaches would work when applied to books.
...I'm going to have to kick my own ass if the RIAA-equivalent in the book world sees this and takes these suggestions seriously.
Imagine buying a great book, a classic even, that you'd like to have a copy of to reread over the years and maybe introduce your kids to later on.
Now imagine the ink disappearing or turning to gibberish after an allowable reading period (5 years? 1 year? 1 month?). I wonder what your average reader's reaction would be if they pulled their copy of their favourite novel off their bookshelf, opened it, and found it to be completely empty (actually, it would be amusing if the pages could just disintegrate in a puff of smoke!)
And now imagine that you don't even know what this allowable reading period could be. Every time you open that novel, it could be for the last time.
Honestly, I'm amazed we still have public libraries. I mean, they let people read FOR FREE for crying out loud. People are gaining knowledge, cultures are being distributed, ideas are being thought... and it's not being monetized?! This madness has to stop!
But, never fear, this can be easily solved by applying lessons we've learned from the music and movie industries. We can have reader licensing fees, or perhaps usage-based models where we can charge by the book or by the page. We can offer incentives to keep people reading too, pay for 10 pages, read the 11th free! (This offer not applicable where the current literary work ends in 10 or less pages. Page credits not applicable to other works.)
You mean worse. The RIAA is legally sanctioned to pretty well do as they please.
He who has no
"good faith"
That's the issue. It's been proven many times already that the RIAA has acted well outside of "good faith" and continue to do so.
Just another ignorant American.
If there were no copyrights, there would be no need for GPL
Maybe I'm missing something, but how does the absence of copyright translate to the availability of source code? If Windows suddenly goes out of copyright, do I then magically gain the source code to it?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This addresses a larger moral issue completely missing from modern discussion about the subject.
In the past, charging interest rates above 5%, if at all, was considered immoral and known as usury. It was so frowned upon because people recognized that making money without working is immoral and unethical in and of itself. Likewise, Adam Smith recognized that a high interest rate would cause capital to flood out of every industry into finance, since you can't hope to build a factory and have the same return as you would simply lending the same money for 10%.
The problem is that distribution of goods is now virtually free and worldwide compared to even a hundred years ago. Digital content even more so. It's understandable that patents and copyrights emerged as mechanisms to reward people for work, but the expiration of these rights is central to progress and promoting competition. Otherwise huge corporations will simply grow larger as they acquire the rights to human knowledge and creativity, and stifle any competition with their largesse and legal abuse.
...
Copyright was intended to as an incentive to create works which would eventually end up as public domain - it was intended to increase public domain. If you break that, don't you invalidate your copyright?
Some people complain about "piracy" as being theft, but given the original intent of copyright, isn't the entire history of the extensions of copyright AND DRM and the DMCA actually theft from the public?...
Right you are. The growing abuse of copyright that has been underway for four decades is in opposition of the express purpose and practice that is spelled out in no less a document than the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Powers of Congress):
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The whole notion of extending copyrights held by parties other than the originators indefinitely after the fact (and often after the originator is dead), clearly defies the constitutional basis of copyright in the first place.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Depends on whether you see this as inherently defective mechandise as well as a violation of the long time US principle of legal preference for "in fee simple sales".
The song copy that I buy is *my* property. I am constrained by copyright to not infringe it by creating and redistributing more copies. Berne copyright, EULAs and DCMA are all corrupt, monopolistic doctrines that should ignored, fought if necessary.
I keep thinking how these approaches would work when applied to books.
You don't have to imagine it -- that's exactly what just happened, when Amazon's Ministry of DRM unpublished '1984' on the Kindle!
But a class action lawsuit isn't going to do you much good if the company itself is going out of business, which would be one of the prime reasons for an authentication server to go out of business.
Personally, businesses pushing so much for this stuff tends to piss me off and start making rules like 'If you put DRM in it, and the DRM fails for whatever reason for a legitimate user, the user is entitled to a full refund'. And 'If the DRM requires a central server, and you shut it down, you have to provide a version that works without the server or refund everyone's money'.
I don't read AC A human right